↓ Skip to main content

Simple eye-movement feedback during visual search is not helpful

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Simple eye-movement feedback during visual search is not helpful
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41235-017-0082-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Trafton Drew, Lauren H. Williams

Abstract

Searching for targets in the visual world, or visual search, is something we all do every day. We frequently make 'false-negative' errors, wherein we erroneously conclude a target was absent when one was, in fact, present. These sorts of errors can have tremendous costs, as when signs of cancers are missed in diagnostic radiology. Prior research has characterized the cause of many of these errors as being due to failure to completely search the area where targets may be present; indeed, roughly one-third of chest nodules missed in lung cancer screening are never fixated (Drew, Võ, Olwal, Jacobson, Seltzer and Wolfe, Journal of Vision 13:3, 2013). This suggests that observers do not have a good representation of what areas have and have not been searched prior to declaring an area target free. Therefore, in six experiments, we sought to examine the utility of reducing the uncertainty with respect to what areas had been examined via online eye-tracking feedback. We hypothesized that providing information about what areas had or had not been examined would lead to lower rates of false negatives or more efficient search, namely faster response times with no cost on target detection accuracy. Neither of these predictions held true. Over six experiments, online eye-tracking feedback did not yield any reliable performance benefits.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 17%
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Professor 4 10%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 45%
Computer Science 3 7%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 10 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,510,021
of 24,946,857 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#242
of 360 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,760
of 449,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,946,857 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 360 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 449,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.