CAJ | 학술논문

以往研究表明在视觉搜索任务中靶呈现的概率会显著影响搜索正确率,尤其是在靶概率极小时,漏报率极高。针对此现象存在截然不同的解释,其中Wolfe等的＂阈限＂论最为盛行。本研究几个实验虽然验证了这一概率效应,然而,我们发现并不能将之归因于＂阈限＂变化,相反,这一效应的产生与抑制控制失败有直接的因果关系。在实验中,如果要求被试按不同键对靶或非靶做出反应,会因为非靶概率太高而产生优势反应,导致漏报率较高;相反,当要求被试对靶进行计数或作标记时,优势反应得到控制,漏报率大幅度下降。另外,本研究证明,如果被试有较强控制优势反应的能力,他们的搜索成绩也更好。这些结果说明,抑制控制能力在靶概率较小的任务中会显著影响搜索正确率,如果采用恰当的反应方式和招募有较强抑制控制能力的靶检测人员均能有效避免漏报错误。
이왕연구표명재시각수색임무중파정현적개솔회현저영향수색정학솔,우기시재파개솔겁소시,루보솔겁고。침대차현상존재절연불동적해석,기중Wolfe등적＂역한＂론최위성행。본연구궤개실험수연험증료저일개솔효응,연이,아문발현병불능장지귀인우＂역한＂변화,상반,저일효응적산생여억제공제실패유직접적인과관계。재실험중,여과요구피시안불동건대파혹비파주출반응,회인위비파개솔태고이산생우세반응,도치루보솔교고;상반,당요구피시대파진행계수혹작표기시,우세반응득도공제,루보솔대폭도하강。령외,본연구증명,여과피시유교강공제우세반응적능력,타문적수색성적야경호。저사결과설명,억제공제능력재파개솔교소적임무중회현저영향수색정학솔,여과채용흡당적반응방식화초모유교강억제공제능력적파검측인원균능유효피면루보착오。
More recently, some researches showed that missing error rates were far higher at 1% target prevalence than at 50% prevalence （Wolfe et al., 2005; 2007; Fleck Mitroff, 2007）. Fleck and Mitroff （2007） suggested giving observers an opportunity to correct their last response can decrease the missing rates. However, the missing rates were still high before incorporating the correction responses. In other words, the mistake had been made before correcting it （Fleck and Midriff, 2007）. Can the missing error be avoided in a more positive manner？ The purpose of the present study was to find a better way to reduce missing errors in the visual search task. We used a similar target detection task, in which the task of observers was to search tools （targets）. In Experiment 1, 3, and 5, observers were required to press one of two keys as a response to the target or nontarget, while they were required to count or make markers in the Experiment 2 or 4 as a response to the targets. In Experiment 6, two tasks were implemented. One was a search task that was the same to Experiment 3, and the other was an inhibition control task. The results of Experiment 1 and Experiment 3 indicated that the missing error was significantly increased when the prevalence of targets was low, which clearly replicated the differential prevalence effects on search performance identified in previous studies （Ethell Manning, 2001; Egglin Feinstein, 1996; Wolf et al., 2005）. As observers in Experiment 1 reported, they noticed the targets in the display but they failed to shift response to the target pictures before pressing a key. Their claims were strongly supported by the results of Experiment 5, in which the observer＇s eye movements were tracked. Since that the response-execution is the main factor that caused the high missing error in low prevalence condition, the missing error was expected to decrease in the following three occasions. First, the missing error will be low when prepotent response is not induced in the target detection task. The results of Experiment 2 proved this expectation. Second, the missing error will be low when observers responded to the targets appropriately. This view is similar to the claims of Fleck and his colleagues （2007）. The results of Experiment 4 in the present study suggested a more positive way to avoid the high missing errors. When observers applied an appropriated responding manner such as making markers, then the mistakes were avoided effectively. Third, the missing error will be low when observers possess a higher ability of execution control. This expectation was demonstrated in Experiment 6. In sum, the results of the current study fully replicated the prevalence effect on visual search performance （Wolfe et al, 2005; 2007）, which should alleviate concerns about methodological differences between studies. However, our results indicated that the high missing error can be avoided by applying the more appropriate responding pattern such as making markers and by recruiting the observers who have a higher ability of inhibition control.