Enhanced visual exploration for real objects compared to pictures during free viewing in the macaque monkey

Mustafar, Faiz; Luna, Paolo De; Rainer, Gregor

doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2015.05.009

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 60 publications

(67 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whether real objects trigger a greater number of competing action plans than images, or whether these plans and their associated feedback gains are stronger, more highly elaborated (Gallivan, Logan, Wolpert, & Flanagan, 2016), or temporally distinct, awaits further investigation. Our data from adults align with studies showing that children habituate differently to (Gerhard, Culham, & Schwarzer, 2016) and maintain fixation longer (Mustafar, De Luna, & Rainer, 2015) on real objects compared with matched 2-D images. Further, our findings add to an emerging literature showing that cognitive processes, such as object recognition (Chainay & Humphreys, 2001;Humphrey et al, 1994), memory (Snow et al, 2014), and decision making (Mischel & Moore, 1973;Romero et al, in press), as well as neural responses (Snow et al, 2014), differ between real objects and 2-D images.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Graspable Objects Grab Attention More Than Images Do

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The opportunity an object presents for action is known as an ‘affordance’. A basic assumption in previous research is that images of objects, which do not afford physical action, elicit effects on attention and behavior comparable to that of real-world tangible objects. Using a flanker task, we compared interference effects between real graspable objects versus matched two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) images of the items. Compared to both 2D and 3D images, real objects slowed response times overall and elicited greater flanker interference effects. When the real objects were positioned out of reach, or behind a transparent barrier, the pattern of RTs and interference effects was comparable to 2D images. Graspable objects exert a more powerful influence on attention and manual responses than images due to the affordances they offer for manual interaction. These results raise questions about whether images are suitable proxies for real objects in psychological research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Graspable Objects Grab Attention More Than Images Do

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although impractical outside controlled conditions, eye-trackers have been successfully mounted to freely-moving ring-tailed lemurs [ 78 , 79 ] ( Lemur catta ). While existing tasks typically measure attention to static images, responses to photographs are often quantitatively weaker or qualitatively different than responses to moving images or the objects themselves [ 80 , 81 ]. Researchers could, therefore, experiment with videos [ 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 ], computer animations [ 87 , 88 ], models [ 89 ], and real animals or objects [ 41 , 42 , 43 , 54 ].…”

Section: Literature Review: Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Affect-Driven Attention Biases as Animal Welfare Indicators: Review and Methods

Crump

Arnott

Bethell

2018

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simple SummaryGood animal welfare requires minimizing suffering and promoting positive experiences. To achieve this, we need reliable indicators of animals’ psychological states. In humans, different moods and emotions (“affects”) are associated with changes in visual attention (“attention bias”). We review studies investigating whether attention biases are also indicators of affect in animals. Although research is limited, evidence for affect-driven attention biases has been found in several species, especially primates and livestock. These studies are discussed in relation to tasks developed for measuring attention in humans. We identify additional findings from human psychology that might be applied to animals, particularly species not studied before, and conclude that affect-driven attention bias is a promising welfare indicator. However, it may be more useful for studying responses to specific stimuli, rather than general wellbeing. With further study, we hope these findings contribute to fulfilling society’s ethical obligations towards animals.AbstractAttention bias describes the differential allocation of attention towards one stimulus compared to others. In humans, this bias can be mediated by the observer’s affective state and is implicated in the onset and maintenance of affective disorders such as anxiety. Affect-driven attention biases (ADABs) have also been identified in a few other species. Here, we review the literature on ADABs in animals and discuss their utility as welfare indicators. Despite a limited research effort, several studies have found that negative affective states modulate attention to negative (i.e., threatening) cues. ADABs influenced by positive-valence states have also been documented in animals. We discuss methods for measuring ADAB and conclude that looking time, dot-probe, and emotional spatial cueing paradigms are particularly promising. Research is needed to test them with a wider range of species, investigate attentional scope as an indicator of affect, and explore the possible causative role of attention biases in determining animal wellbeing. Finally, we argue that ADABs might not be best-utilized as indicators of general valence, but instead to reveal specific emotions, motivations, aversions, and preferences. Paying attention to the human literature could facilitate these advances.

show abstract

“…Differences between real objects versus images have also been reported in a range of behavioral measures. For example, preferences for real objects over images are apparent in eye movement patterns in young children as early as 7 months of age (Gerhard, Culham, & Schwarzer, 2016), as well as in non-human primates (Mustafar, De Luna, & Rainer, 2015). Patients with visual form agnosia who have severe deficits in identifying objects depicted in photographs and line-drawings show striking improvements in recognition when they are presented with real-world objects (Chainay & Humphreys, 2001; Humphrey, Goodale, Jakobson, & Servos, 1994).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The real deal: Willingness-to-pay and satiety expectations are greater for real foods versus their images

Romero

Compton

Yang

et al. 2018

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laboratory studies of human dietary choice have relied on computerized two-dimensional (2D) images as stimuli, whereas in everyday life, consumers make decisions in the context of real foods that have actual caloric content and afford grasping and consumption. Surprisingly, few studies have compared whether real foods are valued more than 2D images of foods, and in the studies that have, differences in the stimuli and testing conditions could have resulted in inflated bids for the real foods. Moreover, although the caloric content of food images has been shown to influence valuation, no studies to date have investigated whether 'real food exposure effects' on valuation reflect greater sensitivity to the caloric content of real foods versus images. Here, we compared willingness-to-pay (WTP) for, and expectations about satiety after consuming, everyday snack foods that were displayed as real foods versus 2D images. Critically, our 2D images were matched closely to the real foods for size, background, illumination, and apparent distance, and trial presentation and stimulus timing were identical across conditions. We used linear mixed effects modeling to determine whether effects of display format were modulated by food preference and the caloric content of the foods. Compared to food images, observers were willing to pay 6.62% more for (Experiment 1) and believed that they would feel more satiated after consuming (Experiment 2), foods displayed as real objects. Moreover, these effects appeared to be consistent across food preference, caloric content, as well as observers' estimates of the caloric content of the foods. Together, our results confirm that consumers' perception and valuation of everyday foods is influenced by the format in which they are displayed. Our findings raise important new insights into the factors that shape dietary choice in real-world contexts and highlight potential avenues for improving public health approaches to diet and obesity.

show abstract

Enhanced visual exploration for real objects compared to pictures during free viewing in the macaque monkey

Cited by 11 publications

References 60 publications

Graspable Objects Grab Attention More Than Images Do

Graspable Objects Grab Attention More Than Images Do

Affect-Driven Attention Biases as Animal Welfare Indicators: Review and Methods

The real deal: Willingness-to-pay and satiety expectations are greater for real foods versus their images

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About