2009
DOI: 10.1007/s10329-008-0128-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparative psychophysical approach to visual perception in primates

Abstract: Studies on the visual processing of primates, which have well developed visual systems, provide essential information about the perceptual bases of their higher-order cognitive abilities. Although the mechanisms underlying visual processing are largely shared between human and nonhuman primates, differences have also been reported. In this article, we review psychophysical investigations comparing the basic visual processing that operates in human and nonhuman species, and discuss the future contributions pote… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 96 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These demonstrations support our conclusion that monkeys can use illusory forms as a basis for psychophysical discriminations, and are consistent with data from previous studies of this kind using illusory boundaries (De Weerd et al, 1996; Huxlin et al, 2000). Furthermore, they lend an additional dimension to a growing body of literature showing similarities between macaques and humans on a range of global form tasks, such as contour integration (Kiorpes & Bassin, 2003), Glass pattern integration (Kiorpes & Movshon, 2003; Kiorpes, 2006), and, more generally, object recognition independently of orientation, occlusion, and other transformations (Kovacs, Vogels, & Orban, 1995; Schiller, 1995; Logothetis & Sheinberg, 1996; Sigala & Logothetis, 2002; Sigala, Gabbiani, & Logothetis, 2002; Matsuno & Fujita, 2009). Further reinforcing these similarities, Fujita (2001) showed that rhesus monkeys and humans observe similar perceptual biases on overestimation of length illusions, while other studies in a chimpanzee (Sato, Kanazawa, & Fujita, 1997) and capuchin monkeys (Fujita & Giersch, 2005) provided evidence for perception of partly occluded figures when two rod halves shared the same alignment and/or direction of movement.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These demonstrations support our conclusion that monkeys can use illusory forms as a basis for psychophysical discriminations, and are consistent with data from previous studies of this kind using illusory boundaries (De Weerd et al, 1996; Huxlin et al, 2000). Furthermore, they lend an additional dimension to a growing body of literature showing similarities between macaques and humans on a range of global form tasks, such as contour integration (Kiorpes & Bassin, 2003), Glass pattern integration (Kiorpes & Movshon, 2003; Kiorpes, 2006), and, more generally, object recognition independently of orientation, occlusion, and other transformations (Kovacs, Vogels, & Orban, 1995; Schiller, 1995; Logothetis & Sheinberg, 1996; Sigala & Logothetis, 2002; Sigala, Gabbiani, & Logothetis, 2002; Matsuno & Fujita, 2009). Further reinforcing these similarities, Fujita (2001) showed that rhesus monkeys and humans observe similar perceptual biases on overestimation of length illusions, while other studies in a chimpanzee (Sato, Kanazawa, & Fujita, 1997) and capuchin monkeys (Fujita & Giersch, 2005) provided evidence for perception of partly occluded figures when two rod halves shared the same alignment and/or direction of movement.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The existence of shape and pattern illusions in human and non-human primates [Fujita, 1997] demonstrates that objective reality and perception do not always tally. Evidence is also emerging that while many aspects of spatial and temporal perception are very similar across primates, there are also differences, particularly in perceptual organization [Fujita, 2001;Matsuno and Fujita, 2009]. This variation in how information that shares space and time is grouped is likely to have a significant impact on how complex visual signals are perceived by different species.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The majority of the Sumatran orangutan diet is fruit, but they also consume bark, leaves, pith, flowers, sap, roots, seeds, honey, fungi, mineral-rich soil, eggs, invertebrates, and meat, and some of these foods require precise manipulation and tool use (Hardus et al, 2012;Rijksen, 1978;van Schaik, 2004;Wich et al, 2004). Like other primates, vision is their dominant sense, and thus relied on by orangutans to locate and identify these foods (Gilad, Wiebe, Przeworski, Lancet, & Pääbo, 2004;Matsuno & Fujita, 2009;Schrauf & Call, 2009). Vision is also crucial for arboreal travel.…”
Section: Orangutan Life Historymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Extensive laboratory-based behavioral and physiological studies exist that compare human visual systems to the most frequently studied nonhuman primate species, macaques, looking at all three of these properties but information is much more limited for the full range of primates, and particularly for nonhuman great apes. Spatial vision has been most widely investigated, followed by color vision (for a review see Matsuno & Fujita, 2009). Data on temporal processing (motion and flicker sensitivity) is largely lacking in nonhuman primate species outside macaques (Macacca fascicularis) (O'Keefe & Movshon, 1998) and chimpanzees (Matsuno & Tomonaga, 2006b, yet is likely to be a critical sensitivity for skills such as arboreal travel.…”
Section: Limits Of Primate Visual Abilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation