Abstract
Pigeons searched for symbolic targets among heterogeneous distractor items displayed on a video monitor. Phase 1 varied target identity and overall display size, thus establishing differential discriminabilities of three target symbols. Phase 2 varied the relative probability of these targets within sessions. The findings showed that reaction time was lower not only when targets were more discriminable, but also when they were relatively frequent; these effects did not depend on the discriminability of the less frequent targets. Phase 3 was similar in design but provided occasional choice trials on which two targets appeared. The birds were more likely to respond to the more frequent target on such trials only if it was also the most discriminable. The data are not consistent with certain predictions from Guilford and Dawkins’ (1987) reinterpretation of effects attributed to search images. The data indicate that detection and choice are modified jointly by priming-induced expectancies and stimulus-driven perceptual processes.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Blough, D. S. (1986). Odd-item search by pigeons: Method, instrumentation, and uses.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,18, 413–419.
Blough, D. S. (1988). Quantitative relations between visual search speed and target-distractor similarity.Perception & Psychophysics,43, 57–71.
Blough, D. S. (1992). Effects of stimulus frequency and reinforcement variables on reaction time.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,57, 47–50.
Blough, D. S., &Blough, P. M. (1990). Reaction time assessments of visual perception in pigeons. In W. C. Stebbins & M. A. Berkley (Eds.),Comparative perception: Vol II. Complex signals (pp. 245–276). New York: Wiley.
Blough, P. M. (1984). Visual search in pigeons: Effects of memory set size and display variables.Perception & Psychophysics,35, 344–352.
Blough, P. M. (1989). Attentional priming and visual search in pigeons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,15, 358–365.
Blough, P. M. (1991). Selective attention and search images in pigeons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,17, 292–298.
Bond, A. B. (1983). Visual search and selection of natural stimuli in the pigeon: The attention threshold hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,9, 292–306.
Bond, A. B., &Riley, D. A. (1991). Searching image in the pigeons: A test of three hypothetical mechanisms.Ethology,87, 203–224.
Bundesen, C. (1990). A theory of visual attention.Psychological Review,97, 523–547.
Dawkins, M. (1971). Perceptual changes in chicks: Another look at the “search image” concept.Animal Behaviour,19, 566–574.
Endler, J. A. (1991). Interactions between predators and prey. In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds.),Behavioral Ecology (3rd ed., pp. 169–196). London: Blackwell Scientific.
Eriksen, C. W., &Yeh, Y. Y. (1985). Allocation of attention in the visual field.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,11, 583–597.
Estes, W. K. (1972). Interactions of signal and background variables in visual processing.Perception & Psychophysics,12, 278–286.
Gendron, R. P. (1986). Searching for cryptic prey: Evidence for optimal search rates and the formation of search images in quail.Animal Behaviour,34, 898–912.
Gendron, R. P., &Staddon, J. E. R. (1983). Searching for cryptic prey: The effect of search rate.American Naturalist,121, 172–186.
Guilford, T., &Dawkins, M. S. (1987). Search images not proven: A reappraisal of recent evidence.Animal Behaviour,35, 1838–1845.
Jonides, J., &Yantis, S. (1988). Uniqueness of abrupt visual onset in capturing attention.Perception & Psychophysics,43, 346–354.
McIntyre, C., Fox, R., &Neale, J. (1970). Effects of noise similarity and redundancy on the information processed from brief visual displays.Perception & Psychophysics,7, 328–332.
Pietrewicz, A. T., &Kamil, A. C. (1979). Search image formation in the Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata).Science,22, 1332–1333.
Pietrewicz, A. T., &Kamil, A. C. (1981). Search images and the detection of cryptic prey: An operant approach. In A. G. Kamil & T. D. Sargent (Eds.),Foraging behavior: Ecological, ethological, and psychological approaches (pp. 311–331). New York: Garland STPM Press.
Posner, M. I., &Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals. In P. M. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.),Attention and performance, (Vol. 5, pp. 669–682). San Diego: Academic Press.
Reid, P. J., &Shettleworth, S. J. (in press). Detection of cryptic prey: Search image or search rate?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes.
Tinbergen, L. (1960). The natural control of insects in pinewoods: I. Factors influencing the density of predation by songbirds.Archives Neerlandaises de Zoologie (Leiden),13, 256–343.
Treisman, A. M., &Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention.Cognitive Psychology,12, 97–136.
Vickers, D. (1970). Evidence for an accumulator model of psychophysical discrimination.Ergonomics,13, 37–58.
Yantis, S., &Jonides, J. (1990). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Voluntary versus automatic allocation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 121–134.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant BNS 88-19876 from the National Science Foundation. I am grateful to Donald S. Blough and Cynthia Langley for their comments.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Blough, P.M. Detectability and choice during visual search: joint effects of sequential priming and discriminability. Animal Learning & Behavior 20, 293–300 (1992). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213383
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213383