Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Selective attention in peacocks during predator detection

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Animal Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Predation can exert strong selective pressure on the evolution of behavioral and morphological traits in birds. Because predator avoidance is key to survival and birds rely heavily on visual perception, predation may have shaped avian visual systems as well. To address this question, we examined the role of visual attention in antipredator behavior in peacocks (Pavo cristatus). Peacocks were exposed to a model predator while their gaze was continuously recorded with a telemetric eye-tracker. We found that peacocks spent more time looking at and made more fixations on the predator compared to the same spatial location before the predator was revealed. The duration of fixations they directed toward conspecifics and environmental features decreased after the predator was revealed, indicating that the peacocks were rapidly scanning their environment with their eyes. Maximum eye movement amplitudes and amplitudes of consecutive saccades were similar before and after the predator was revealed. In cases where conspecifics detected the predator first, peacocks appeared to learn that danger was present by observing conspecifics’ antipredator behavior. Peacocks were faster to detect the predator when they were fixating closer to the area where the predator would eventually appear. In addition, pupil size increased after predator exposure, consistent with increased physiological arousal. These findings demonstrate that peacocks selectively direct their attention toward predatory threats and suggest that predation has influenced the evolution of visual orienting systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barbur JL, Prescott NB, Douglas RH, Jarvis JR, Wathes CM (2002) A comparative study of stimulu-specific pupil responses in domestic fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus) and the human. Vis Res 42:249–255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bitsios P, Szabadi E, Bradshaw CM (1996) The inhibition of the papillary light reflex by the threat of an electric shock: a potential laboratory model of human anxiety. J Psychopharmacol 10:279–287

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley MM, Miccoli L, Escrig MA, Lang PJ (2008) The pupil as a measure of emotional arousal and autonomic activation. Psychophysiology 45:602–607

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw J (1967) Pupil size as a measure of arousal during information processing. Nature 216:515–516

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Briskie JV, Martin PR, Martin TE (1999) Nest predation and the evolution of nestling begging calls. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:2153–2159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caro T (2005) Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Charney D, Grillon C, Bremner JD (1998) Review: the neurobiological basis of anxiety and fear: circuits, mechanisms, and neurochemical interactions (part I). Neuroscientist 4:35–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collewijn H (1977) Eye- and head movements in freely moving rabbits. J Physiol 266:471–498

    PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell W, Quinn JL, Whittingham MJ, Butler S (2003) Good foragers can also be good at detecting predators. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1069–1076

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell W, Butler S, Whittingham MJ, Quinn JL (2008) Very short delays prior to escape from potential predators may function efficiently as adaptive risk-assessment periods. Behaviour 146:795–813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curio E (1978) The adaptive significance of avian mobbing: I. Teleonomic hypotheses and predictions. Z Tierpsychol 48:175–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Devereux CL, Whittingham MJ, Fernández-Juricic E, Vickery JA, Krebs JR (2006) Predator detection and avoidance by starlings under differing scenarios of predation risk. Behav Ecol 17:303–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fantz R (1958) Pattern vision in young infants. Psychol Rec 8:43–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Guillemain M, Martin GR, Fritz H (2002) Feeding methods, visual fields, and vigilance in dabbling ducks (Anatidae). Funct Ecol 16:522–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadjikhani N, Hoge R, Snyder J, de Gelder B (2008) Pointing with the eyes: the role of gaze in communication danger. Brain Cogn 68:1–8

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamada T (1984) A method for calibrating the gain of the electro-oculogram (EOG) using the optical properties of the eye. J Neurosci Methods 10:259–265

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hart NS (2001) Variations in cone photoreceptor abundance and the visual ecology of birds. J Comp Physiol A 187:685–698

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hart N (2002) Vision in the peafowl (Aves: Pavo cristatus). J Exp Biol 205:3925–3935

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaby U, Lind J (2003) What limits predator detection in blue tits (Parus caeruleus): posture, task, orientation? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:534–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kannan R, James DA (1998) Common peafowl (Pavo cristatus). In: Polle A, Gill F (eds) The birds of North America, no. 377. Birds of North America, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiltie RA (2000) Scaling of visual acuity with body size in mammals and birds. Funct Ecol 14:226–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaBerge D, Brown V (1989) Theory of attentional operations in space identification. Psychol Rev 96:101–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL, Bednekoff PA (1999) Back to the basics of antipredatory vigilance: can nonvigilant animals detect attack? Anim Behav 58:537–543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioural decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin G (1986) The eye of a passeriform bird, the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris): eye movement amplitude, visual fields and schematic optics. J Comp Physiol A 159:545–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin TE (1995) Avian life history evolution in relation to nest sites, nest predation, and food. Ecol Monogr 65:101–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin TE, Badyaev AV (1996) Sexual dichromatism in birds: importance of nest predation and nest location for females versus males. Evolution 50:2454–2460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurer D (1975) Infant visual perception: methods of study. In: Cohen LB, Salapatek P (eds) Infant perception: from sensation to cognition, vol 1. Basic visual processes. Academic Press, New York, pp 1–76

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden SA, Reymond L (1985) A further look at the binocular visual field of the pigeon (Columba livia). Vis Res 25:1741–1746

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara JM, Houston AI (1992) Evolutionarily stable levels of vigilance as a function of group size. Anim Behav 43:641–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer DBC (1977) The avian eye and its adaptations. In: Crescitelli F (ed) The visual system of vertebrates, handbook of sensory physiology. Springer, New York, pp 549–612

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moore BA, Baumhardt P, Doppler M, Randolet J, Blackwell BF, DeVault TL, Loew ER, Fernández-Juricic E (2012) Oblique color vision in an open-habitat bird: spectral sensitivity, photoreceptor distribution and behavioral implications. J Exp Biol 215:3442–3452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nagamatsu T, Kamahara J, Iko T, Tanaka N (2008) One-point calibration gaze tracking based on eyeball kinematics using stereo cameras. In: Proceedings of the 2008 symposium on eye tracking research applications. ACM, Savannah, GA, pp 95–98

  • Newman JA, Caraco T (1987) Foraging, predation hazard and patch use in grey squirrels. Anim Behav 35:1804–1813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally JC, Knott PD, Duchnowski A, Parker R (1967) Pupillary response as a general measure of activation. Percept Psychophys 2:149–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preuschoff K, ’t Hart BM, Einhäuser W (2011) Pupil dilation signals surprise: evidence for noradrenaline’s role in decision making. Front Neurosci 5:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam HR (1973) On the advantages of flocking. J Theor Biol 38:419–422

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam HR, Pyke GH, Caraco T (1982) The scanning behaviour of juncos: a game-theoretical approach. J Theor Biol 95:89–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts G (1996) Why individual vigilance decreases as group size increases. Anim Behav 51:1077–1086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schleidt WM (1973) Tonic communication: continual effects of discrete signs in animal communication. J Theor Biol 42:359–386

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider KJ (1984) Dominance, predation, and optimal foraging in white-throated sparrow flocks. Ecology 65:1820–1827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman PW (1977) Nepotism and the evolution of alarm calls. Science 197:1246–1253

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson HM, Hale SM (1969) Pupillary changes during a decision-making task. Percept Mot Skills 29:495–498

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Szechtman H, Adler NT, Komisaruk BR (1985) Mating induces papillary dilation in female rats: role of pelvic nerve. Physiol Behav 35:295–301

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi M, Hasegawa T (2008) Seasonal and diurnal use of eight different call types by Indian peafowl (Pavo cristatus). J Ethol 26:375–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tisdale V, Fernández-Juricic E (2009) Vigilance and predator detection vary between avian species with different visual acuity and coverage. Behav Ecol 20:936–945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsal Y (1983) Movement of attention across the visual field. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 9:523–530

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Turk-Browne NB, Pratt J (2005) Attending to eye movements and retinal eccentricity: evidence for the activity distribution models of attention reconsidered. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31:1061–1066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wallman J, Letelier J-C (1993) Eye movements, head movements, and gaze stabilization in birds. In: Zeigler H, Bischof H-J (eds) Vision, brain and behavior in birds. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 245–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Whipple B, Ogden G, Komisaruk BR (1992) Physiological correlates of imagery-induced orgasm in women. Arch Sex Behav 21:121–133

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Whittingham MJ, Butler SJ, Quinn JL, Cresswell W (2004) The effect of limited visibility on vigilance behavior and speed of predator detection: implications for the conservation of granivorous passerines. Oikos 106:377–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yorzinski JL, Penkunas MJ, Platt ML, Coss RC (in review) Dangerous animals capture and maintain attention in humans. Cognition

  • Yorzinski JL, Platt ML (2012) The difference between night and day: antipredator behavior in birds. J Ethol 30:211–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yorzinski JL, Patricelli GL, Babcock J, Pearson JM, Platt ML (2013) Through their eyes: selective attention in peahens during courtship. J Exp Biol 216:3035–3046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yoss RE, Moyer NJ, Hollenhorst RW (1970) Pupil size and spontaneous papillary waves associated with alertness, drowsiness, and sleep. Neurology 20:545–554

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zeigler HP, Bischof H-J (1993) Vision, brain, and behavior in birds. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Gail Patricelli for helpful discussion and Jason Babcock for assistance with the eye-tracker. Peter and Martha Klopfer allowed the birds to be housed on their farm. This research was funded by a National Science Foundation graduate research fellowship, an Animal Behaviour Society Student Research Grant, the Animal Behavior Graduate Group at UC Davis, the Chapman Memorial Fund, a grant-in-aid of research from the National Academy of Sciences (administered by Sigma-Xi, The Scientific Research Society), Gail Patricelli (through UC Davis), a Philanthropic Educational Organization Scholar Award, and a National Geographic Society/Waitt Foundation grant to J.L.Y. The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and Duke Lemur Center provided funding to M.L.P.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Duke Institute for Brain Sciences, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27710, USA

    Jessica L. Yorzinski & Michael L. Platt

  2. Department of Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, 27710, USA

    Michael L. Platt

Authors
  1. Jessica L. Yorzinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael L. Platt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica L. Yorzinski.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 17 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MOV 12730 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yorzinski, J.L., Platt, M.L. Selective attention in peacocks during predator detection. Anim Cogn 17, 767–777 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-013-0708-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-013-0708-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation