Highly dangerous road hazards are not immune from the low prevalence effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The low prevalence effect (LPE) is a cognitive limitation commonly found in visual search tasks, in which observers miss rare targets. Drivers looking for road hazards are also subject to the LPE. However, not all road hazards are equal; a paper bag floating down the road is much less dangerous than a rampaging moose. Here, we asked whether perceived hazardousness modulated the LPE. To examine this, we took a dataset in which 48 raters assessed the perceived dangerousness of hazards in recorded road videos (Song et al., 2023) and correlated the ratings with data from a hazard detection task using the same stimuli with varying hazard prevalence rates (Kosovicheva et al., 2023). We found that while hazard detectability increased monotonically with hazardousness ratings, the LPE was comparable across perceived hazardousness levels. Our findings are consistent with the decision criterion account of the LPE, in which target rarity induces a conservative shift in criterion. Importantly, feedback was necessary for a large and consistent LPE; when participants were not given feedback about their accuracy, the most dangerous hazards showed a non-significant LPE. However, eliminating feedback was not enough to induce the opposite of the LPE— prevalence induced concept change (Levari et al., 2018), in which participants adopt a more liberal criterion when instances of a category become rare. Our results suggest that the road hazard LPE may be somewhat affected by the inherent variability of driving situations, but is still observed for highly dangerous 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
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".