Satisfaction in motion: Subsequent search misses are more likely in moving search displays

Abstract

People often conduct visual searches in which multiple targets are possible (e.g., medical x-rays can contain multiple abnormalities). In this type of search, observers are more likely to miss a second target after having found a first one (a subsequent search miss). Recent evidence suggests that this effect may be due to a depletion of cognitive resources from tracking the identities and locations of found targets. Given that tracking moving objects is resource-demanding, would finding a moving target further increase the chances of missing a subsequent one? To address this question, we had participants search for one or more targets hidden among distractors. Subsequent search misses were more likely when targets and distractors moved throughout the display than when they remained stationary. However, when found targets were highlighted in a unique color, subsequent search misses were no more likely in moving displays. Together, these results suggest that the effect of movement was likely due to the increased cognitive demands of tracking moving targets. Overall, our findings reveal that activities that involve searching for moving targets (e.g., driving) are more susceptible to subsequent search misses than those that involve searching for stationary targets (e.g., baggage screening).

Assessing satisfaction of search in virtual mammograms for experienced and novice searchers

“…Finally, the resource depletion theory suggests that cognitive resources are allocated to the processing of a first target, leaving them less readily available to detect an additional target. While cognitive science has demonstrated support for the three theories: satisfaction, 6 – 8 perceptual set, 9 – 11 and resource depletion, 12 – 16 the theories remained disparate, with no mechanistic explanation for their predictions. More recently, the attentional template theory has been proposed, 17 which bridges the findings in support of each theory for a more unified, mechanistic explanation for SOS errors (See Fig.…”