Are Foraging Patterns in Humans Related to Working Memory and Inhibitory Control?

Abstract

In previous studies we have shown that human foraging patterns appear to be constrained by attention. However, we also noted clear individual differences in foraging ability, where some individuals can apparently keep more than one target template in mind during foraging. Here, we examine whether such individual differences relate to more general working memory capacity and/or the ability to inhibit a primed, or prepotent response. We had three main goals. First, to replicate general patterns of attention-constrained foraging. Second, to verify that some individuals appear immune to such constraints. Third, to investigate a possible link between individual foraging style and working memory abilities measured on a digit-span task and inhibitory control measured with a Stroop task. In sum, we replicated the finding that foraging differs greatly by whether foraging targets are defined by a single feature or a conjunction of features, but also again found that some observers show little differences in foraging between the two conditions, seemingly shifting with ease between search templates. In contrast, neither working memory nor Stroop performance were reliable predictors of these individual differences in foraging pattern. We discuss the implications of the findings for theories of visual attention.

Meditation, Cognitive Flexibility and Well-Being

“…This is not surprising as foraging is thought to draw on several subsets of cognitive functions including working memory, inhibition, motor-action planning and cognitive flexibility (Kristjánsson et al 2014;Woods et al 2013). More specifically, it has been suggested that individuals with better attentional control are likely to continue to switch more often with conjunction targets than those who have poorer attentional control (Jóhannesson et al 2016(Jóhannesson et al , 2017. Our interest was whether search speed or run behaviour would differ following the mindfulness training.…”

Editorial: Search: A New Perspective to Understand Cognitive Dynamics

“…A number of recent papers have derived insights from theories of foraging in ecology (Cain, Vul, Clark, & Mitroff, ; Ehinger & Wolfe, ; Jóhannesson, Thornton, Smith, Chetverikov, & Kristjánsson, ; Robertson, Watamura, & Wilbourn, ). In this issue, Jóhannesson et al () explore individual differences in visual foraging strategies. When foraging for feature search targets, most observers will readily switch among different targets (e.g., red and green disks among yellow and blue disks), but when faced with conjunction targets (e.g., red squares and green disks among green squares and red disks), they switch to the strategy of sticking with long runs of a single target type.…”

“…Interestingly, in human observers, not everybody makes this switch; some observers (dubbed “super‐foragers”) happily switch back and forth between conjunction targets. Jóhannesson et al () demonstrate that these individual differences cannot be explained by either working memory capacity or Stroop task performance. Nevertheless, understanding this phenomenon could have important implications for search behavior in humans and other species.…”

“…They cover a variety of topics across the spectrum of contemporary search research: the prevalence effect (Horowitz, 2017); the importance of scene structure (Ueda, Kamakura, & Saiki, 2017); haptic search (Kaga, Kawaguchi, Mishina, Kita, & Watanabe, 2017); contextual cueing (Higuchi & Saiki, 2017;Makovski, 2017); foraging (Jóhannesson, Kristjánsson, & Thornton, 2017); inhibition of return (Niimi, Shimada, & Yokosawa, 2017); biological motion (Mayer, Vuong, & Thornton, 2017); and the cognitive effects of mobile phone use (Ito & Kawahara, 2017). They also cover a range of search behaviors, including tactile exploration (Kaga et al, 2017), vision-guided touch responses (Jóhannesson et al, 2017), oculomotor behavior (Ueda et al, 2017), in addition to standard button-press reaction time (RT) and accuracy measures. Some studies focus on fundamental, basic science questions (Higuchi & Saiki, 2017;Makovski, 2017), others are concerned with "use-inspired" questions (Horowitz, 2017;Ito & Kawahara, 2017).…”

“…In this issue, Jóhannesson et al (2017) explore individual differences in visual foraging strategies. When foraging for feature search targets, most observers will readily switch among different targets (e.g., red and green disks among yellow and blue disks), but when faced with conjunction targets (e.g., red squares and green disks among green squares and red disks), they switch to the strategy of sticking with long runs of a single target type.…”