Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 10, 2026

Rare Event Detection Using Error-corrected DNA and RNA Sequencing
Published on: August 3, 2018
Mathias S Fleck1, Stephen R Mitroff
1Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA. mathias.fleck@duke.edu
Abstract:
Failing to find a tumor in an x-ray scan or a gun in an airport baggage screening can have dire consequences, making it fundamentally important to elucidate the mechanisms that hinder performance in such visual searches. Recent laboratory work has indicated that low target prevalence can lead to disturbingly high miss rates in visual search. Here, however, we demonstrate that misses in low-prevalence searches can be readily abated. When targets are rarely present, observers adapt by responding more quickly, and miss rates are high. Critically, though, these misses are often due to response-execution errors, not perceptual or identification errors: Observers know a target was present, but just respond too quickly. When provided an opportunity to correct their last response, observers can catch their mistakes. Thus, low target prevalence may not be a generalizable cause of high miss rates in visual search.
Insights
Low target prevalence in visual searches does not always cause high miss rates. Observers adapt by responding faster, leading to correctable response errors rather than perception failures.
Area of Science:
- Cognitive Psychology
- Human Perception
- Visual Search
Background:
- High miss rates in visual search tasks, such as medical imaging or security screening, are a significant concern.
- Previous research suggested that low target prevalence (infrequent targets) is a primary cause of these high miss rates.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the underlying mechanisms of high miss rates in low target prevalence visual search.
- To determine if misses in low prevalence searches are due to perceptual limitations or other factors.
Main Methods:
- Participants performed visual search tasks with varying target prevalence.
- Response times and error types (misses, false alarms) were recorded.
- A response correction condition was introduced to assess error types.
Main Results:
- Observers responded faster in low target prevalence conditions, leading to increased miss rates.
- Misses were frequently identified as response-execution errors, not failures in perception or identification.
- Participants could correct their errors when given an opportunity to review their last response.
Conclusions:
- The high miss rates observed in low target prevalence searches may be largely due to response-execution errors, not fundamental perceptual deficits.
- Low target prevalence might not be an inherent cause of unavoidable high miss rates in visual search.
- Strategies to mitigate response-execution errors could improve performance in real-world visual search tasks.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test
Unusual Results
According to the range rule of thumb, any value above or below two standard deviations, 2σ from the mean, μ is considered unusual.
Maximum unusual value = μ + 2σ
Minimum unusual value...
Targeted Cancer Therapies
There are several types of targeted therapies against specific...
Mismatch Repair
The Mutator Protein Family Plays a Key Role in DNA Mismatch Repair
The human genome has more than 3 billion base pairs of DNA per cell. Prior to cell division, that vast amount of genetic...
Difference from Background: Limit of Detection
The LOD indicates the presence or absence...
Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization
Absolute error in a measurement is the numerical difference from the true or central value. Relative error is the ratio between absolute error and the true or central value, expressed as a percentage.
Errors can be classified by source, magnitude, and sign. There are three types of errors: systematic, random, and gross.
Systematic or...

