Taking prevalence effects on the road: Rare hazards are often missed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work has shown that, in many visual search and detection tasks, observers frequently miss rare but important targets, like weapons in bags or abnormalities in radiological images. These prior studies of the low-prevalence effect (LPE) use static stimuli and typically permitted observers to search at will. In contrast, many real-world tasks, like looking for dangerous behavior on the road, only afford observers a brief glimpse of a complex, changing scene before they must make a decision. Can the LPE be a factor in in dynamic, time-limited moments of real driving? To test this, we developed a novel hazard-detection task that preserves much of the perceptual richness and complexity of hazard detection in the real world, while allowing for experimental control over event prevalence. Observers viewed brief video clips of road scenes recorded from dashboard cameras and reported whether they saw a hazardous event. In separate sessions, the prevalence of these events was either high (50% of videos) or low (4%). Under low prevalence, observers missed hazards at more than twice the rate observed in the high-prevalence condition. Follow-up experiments demonstrate that this elevation of miss rate at low prevalence persists when participants were allowed to correct their responses, increases as hazards become increasingly rare (down to 1% prevalence) and is resistant to simple cognitive intervention (participant prebriefing). Together, our results demonstrate that the LPE generalizes to complex perceptual decisions in dynamic natural scenes, such as driving, where observers must monitor and respond to rare hazards.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.218 | 0.011 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".