Table 1 Summary of SSM Theories and Their Respective Research

Satisfaction

Do not support

Observers become satisfied with the meaning of an image after finding the first target and prematurely terminate search. (Smith, 1967; Tuddenham, 1962)

Berbaum et al. (1991)-Total time spent searching for targets is not significantly different in single-and multiple-target images

Berbaum et al. (1998)-Observers have similar gaze-dwell times in “native” target area on single and multiple-target images

Fleck et al. (2010)-Total time spent searching for targets is similar in single-and multiple-target search displays (“Appendix”)

Cain et al. (2013)-Observers rarely terminate search immediately after detecting the first target

Support

Samuel et al. (1995)-Less total time spent searching in multiple-target compared to single-target images

Adamo et al. (2018)-Observers who spend less time searching after first target detection are more likely to commit an SSM error

Stothart and Brockmole (2019)-Observers who are less likely to “expect” a second target are more likely to commit an SSM error

Perceptual set

Do not support

Observers are biased to search for targets similar to a detected target and are more likely to miss dissimilar targets (Berbaum et al., 1990, 1991)

Fleck et al. (2010)-Observers commit SSM errors for targets that are similar and dissimilar in salience

Support

Berbaum et al. (2001)-Reduced SSM effect when abnormalities were similar in severity (i.e., both abnormalities were minor compared to a major and minor abnormality)

Mitroff et al. (2015)-Reduced SSM effect when targets were identical compared to when they were not identical

Biggs et al. (2015)-Reduced SSM effect when targets were perceptually and categorically similar compared to when they were dissimilar

Gorbunova (2017)-Improved second-target detection when a first and second target have more perceptual features in common

Resource depletion

Support

A detected first target consumes attentional and working memory resources leaving fewer resources readily available to detect an additional target (Berbaum et al., 1991; Cain & Mitroff, 2013)

Adamo et al. (2013)-An “attentional blink” can cause SSM errors

Cain and Mitroff (2013)-Reduced working memory load, by removing or changing the first target after detection, reduces SSM errors

Adamo et al. (2015)-Clutter around a second target increases SSM errors

Adamo et al. (2017)-Individual differences in attentional modulation (i.e., the width of their attentional blink) and vigilance correlate with the SSM effect

Stothart et al. (2018)-Movement of targets and distractors increases the SSM effect