Interactions between top-down and bottom-up attention in barn owls (Tyto alba)

Original Paper

Abstract

Selective attention, the prioritization of behaviorally relevant stimuli for behavioral control, is commonly divided into two processes: bottom-up, stimulus-driven selection and top-down, task-driven selection. Here, we tested two barn owls in a visual search task that examines attentional capture of the top-down task by bottom-up mechanisms. We trained barn owls to search for a vertical Gabor patch embedded in a circular array of differently oriented Gabor distractors (top-down guided search). To track the point of gaze, a lightweight wireless video camera was mounted on the owl’s head. Three experiments were conducted in which the owls were tested in the following conditions: (1) five distractors; (2) nine distractors; (3) five distractors with one distractor surrounded by a red circle; or (4) five distractors with a brief sound at the initiation of the stimulus. Search times and number of head saccades to reach the target were measured and compared between the different conditions. It was found that search time and number of saccades to the target increased when the number of distractors was larger (condition 2) and when an additional irrelevant salient stimulus, auditory or visual, was added to the scene (conditions 3 and 4). These results demonstrate that in barn owls, bottom-up attention interacts with top-down attention to shape behavior in ways similar to human attentional capture. The findings suggest similar attentional principles in taxa that have been evolutionarily separated for 300 million years.

Keywords

Animal behavior Attentional capture Birds Saliency Stimulus selection 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Yael Zahar for technical and graphical support. We would also like to thank Prof. Herman Wagner and Julius Orlowski from Aachen University for their support in constructing the headcam for barn owls.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 7123 kb)

10071_2017_1150_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (32 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 31 kb)

References

  1. Awh E, Belopolsky AV, Theeuwes J (2012) Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends Cogn Sci 16:437–443CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Tov M, Donchin O, Ben-Shahar O, Segev R (2015) Pop-out in visual search of moving targets in the archer fish. Nat Commun 6:6476CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Berti S (2013) The role of auditory transient and deviance processing in distraction of task performance: a combined behavioral and event-related brain potential study. Front Hum Neurosci 7:352CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Brainard DH (1997) The psychophysics toolbox. Spat Vis 10:433–436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bushnell PJ, Strupp BJ (2009) Assessing attention in rodents. In: Buccafusco JJ (ed) Methods of behavior analysis in Neuroscience, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  6. Carrasco M, Yeshurun Y (1998) The contribution of covert attention to the set-size and eccentricity effects in visual search. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24:673–692CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook RG, Cavoto KK, Cavoto BR (1996) Mechanisms of multidimensional grouping, fusion, and search in avian texture discrimination. Anim Learn Behav 24:150–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cook RG, Cavoto BR, Katz JS, Cavoto KK (1997) Pigeon perception and discrimination of rapidly changing texture stimuli. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 23:390–400CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook RG, Katz JS, Blaisdell AP (2012) Temporal properties of visual search in pigeon target localization. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 38:209–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dalton P, Hughes RW (2014) Auditory attentional capture: implicit and explicit approaches. Psychol Res 78:313–320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis ET, Palmer J (2004) Visual search and attention: an overview. Spat Vis 17:249–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. de Bivort BL, van Swinderen B (2016) Evidence for selective attention in the insect brain. Curr Opin Insect Sci 15:9–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. du Lac S, Knudsen EI (1990) Neural maps of head movement vector and speed in the optic tectum of the barn owl. J Neurophysiol 63:131–146PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dukas R, Kamil AC (2000) The cost of limited attention in blue jays. Behav Ecol 11:502–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duncan J, Humphreys GW (1989) Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychol Rev 96:433–458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fitzke FW, Hayes BP, Hodos W, Holden AL, Low JC (1985) Refractive sectors in the visual field of the pigeon eye. J Physiol 369:33–44CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Forster S, Lavie N (2016) Establishing the attention-distractibility trait. Psychol Sci 27:203–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gutfreund Y (2012) Stimulus-specific adaptation, habituation and change detection in the gaze control system. Biol Cybern 106:657–668CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Harmening WM, Orlowski J, Ben-Shahar O, Wagner H (2011) Overt attention toward oriented objects in free-viewing barn owls. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:8461–8466CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Hazan Y, Kra Y, Yarin I, Wagner H, Gutfreund Y (2015) Visual-auditory integration for visual search: a behavioral study in barn owls. Front Integr Neurosci 9:11CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Hickey C, McDonald JJ, Theeuwes J (2006) Electrophysiological evidence of the capture of visual attention. J Cogn Neurosci 18:604–613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hillyard SA, Stormer VS, Feng W, Martinez A, McDonald JJ (2016) Cross-modal orienting of visual attention. Neuropsychologia 83:170–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Ingle D (1975) Focal attention in the frog: behavioral and physiological correlates. Science 188:1033–1035CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnen A, Wagner H, Gaese BH (2001) Spatial attention modulates sound localization in barn owls. J Neurophysiol 85:1009–1012PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Knudsen EI (2011) Control from below: the role of a midbrain network in spatial attention. Eur J Neurosci 33:1961–1972CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Knudsen EI, Blasdel GG, Konishi M (1979) Mechanisms of sound localization in the barn owl (Tyto alba). J Comp Physiol A 133:13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koelewijn T, Bronkhorst A, Theeuwes J (2009) Auditory and visual capture during focused visual attention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 35:1303–1315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Krauzlis RJ, Liston D, Carello CD (2004) Target selection and the superior colliculus: goals, choices and hypotheses. Vis Res 44:1445–1451CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kumar S, Hedges SB (1998) A molecular timescale for vertebrate evolution. Nature 392:917–920CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lavie N (1995) Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 21:451CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lavie N (2005) Distracted and confused?: selective attention under load. Trends Cogn Sci 9:75–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Liesefeld HR, Liesefeld AM, Tollner T, Muller HJ (2017) Attentional capture in visual search: capture and post-capture dynamics revealed by EEG. Neuroimage 156:166–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Matusz PJ, Eimer M (2011) Multisensory enhancement of attentional capture in visual search. Psychon Bull Rev 18:904–909CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Matusz PJ, Broadbent H, Ferrari J, Forrest B, Merkley R, Scerif G (2015) Multi-modal distraction: insights from children’s limited attention. Cognition 136:156–165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Mokeichev A, Segev R, Ben-Shahar O (2010) Orientation saliency without visual cortex and target selection in archer fish. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:16726–16731CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Nieder A, Wagner H (1999) Perception and neuronal coding of subjective contours in the owl. Nat Neurosci 2:660–663CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Carroll DC, Warrant EJ (2017) Vision in dim light: highlights and challenges. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 372:1717Google Scholar
  38. Ohayon S, Harmening W, Wagner H, Rivlin E (2008) Through a barn owl’s eyes: interactions between scene content and visual attention. Biol Cybern 98:115–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Orlowski J, Beissel C, Rohn F, Adato Y, Wagner H, Ben-Shahar O (2015) Visual pop-out in barn owls: human-like behavior in the avian brain. J Vis 15:4CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Pinto Y, van der Leij AR, Sligte IG, Lamme VA, Scholte HS (2013) Bottom-up and top-down attention are independent. J Vis 13:16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Sareen P, Wolf R, Heisenberg M (2011) Attracting the attention of a fly. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:7230–7235CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Spaethe J, Tautz J, Chittka L (2006) Do honeybees detect colour targets using serial or parallel visual search? J Exp Biol 209:987–993CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Sridharan D, Ramamurthy DL, Schwarz JS, Knudsen EI (2014) Visuospatial selective attention in chickens. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:E2056–E2065CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Tellinghuisen DJ, Nowak EJ (2003) The inability to ignore auditory distractors as a function of visual task perceptual load. Percept Psychophys 65:817–828CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Theeuwes J (1992) Perceptual selectivity for color and form. Percept Psychophys 51:599–606CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Theeuwes J, Olivers CN, Belopolsky A (2010) Stimulus-driven capture and contingent capture. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 1:872–881CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Treisman A, Gelade G (1980) A feature-integration theory of attention. Cogn Psychol 12:97–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Treisman A, Sato S (1990) Conjunction search revisited. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 16:459–478CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Wathey JC, Pettigrew JD (1989) Quantitative analysis of the retinal ganglion cell layer and optic nerve of the barn owl Tyto alba. Brain Behav Evol 33:279–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Wolfe JM, Horowitz TS (2004) What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? Nat Rev Neurosci 5:495–501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Wolfe JM, Cave KR, Franzel SL (1989) Guided search: an alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 15:419–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Zentall TR (2005) Selective and divided attention in animals. Behav Processes 69:1–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neuroscience, Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Institute and Rappaport Faculty of MedicineTechnion – Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations