Comparable search efficiency for human and animal targets in the context of natural scenes
- 40 Downloads
In a previous series of studies, we have shown that search for human targets in the context of natural scenes is more efficient than search for mechanical targets. Here we asked whether this search advantage extends to other categories of biological objects. We used videos of natural scenes to directly contrast search efficiency for animal and human targets among biological or nonbiological distractors. In visual search arrays consisting of two, four, six, or eight videos, observers searched for animal targets among machine distractors, and vice versa (Exp. 1). Another group searched for animal targets among human distractors, and vice versa (Exp. 2). We measured search slope as a proxy for search efficiency, and complemented the slope with eye movement measurements (fixation duration on the target, as well as the proportion of first fixations landing on the target). In both experiments, we observed no differences in search slopes or proportions of first fixations between any of the target–distractor category pairs. With respect to fixation durations, we found shorter on-target fixations only for animal targets as compared to machine targets (Exp. 1). In summary, we did not find that the search advantage for human targets over mechanical targets extends to other biological objects. We also found no search advantage for detecting humans as compared to other biological objects. Overall, our pattern of findings suggests that search efficiency in natural scenes, as elsewhere, depends crucially on the specific target–distractor categories.
KeywordsVisual search Natural scenes Biological motion Biological form Eyetracking Animal motion
Special thanks to Y. Tadmor for the provision of lab space and help with analyzing the eyetracking data.
Statement of Availability
The behavioral and eyetracking raw data will be made available upon request.
- Bindemann, M., Scheepers, C., Ferguson, H. J., & Burton, A. M. (2010). Face, body, and center of gravity mediate person detection in natural scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1477–1485. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019057 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Blake, R., & Shiffrar, M. (2007). Perception of human motion. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 47–73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190152 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Han, Z. Z., Bi, Y. C., Chen, J., Chen, Q. J., He, Y., & Caramazza, A. (2013). Distinct regions of right temporal cortex are associated with biological and human-agent motion: Functional magnetic resonance imaging and neuropsychological evidence. Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 15442–15453. doi: https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.5868-12.2013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- JASP Team. (2018). JASP (Version 0.10.0) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://jasp-stats.org/download/
- Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., & Pelli, D. (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3? Perception, 36(ECVP Abstract Suppl.), 14.Google Scholar
- Ruffieux, N., Ramon, M., Lao, J. P., Colombo, F., Stacchi, L., Borruat, F. X., … Caldara, R. (2016). Residual perception of biological motion in cortical blindness. Neuropsychologia, 93, 301–311. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.11.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi. Comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 426–432. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022790 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar