Hybrid foraging search: Searching for multiple instances of multiple types of target

Wolfe, Jeremy M.; Aizenman, Avigael; Boettcher, Sage; Cain, Matthew S.

doi:10.1016/j.visres.2015.12.006

Cited by 50 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As mentioned in the introduction, the current work can be seen as a contribution to a small, but rapidly growing, literature on human foraging (Cain et el., ; Jóhannesson et al, ; Á. Kristjánsson et al, ; Smith et al, ; Wolfe, ). A study by Wolfe, Aizenman, Boettcher, and Cain () deserves particular mention as it replicates our initial report that humans, like other species, forage in “runs” when presented with multiple targets (Á. Kristjánsson et al, ). To our knowledge, only a handful of previous studies have explicitly measured run‐like behavior in this way (i.e., Bond, ; Dawkins, ; Á. Kristjánsson et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

“…Kristjánsson et al, 2014;Smith et al, 2008;Wolfe, 2013). A study by Wolfe, Aizenman, Boettcher, and Cain (2016) deserves particular mention as it replicates our initial report that humans, like other species, forage in "runs" when presented with multiple targets ( A. Kristjánsson et al, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 52%

“…To our knowledge, only a handful of previous studies have explicitly measured run‐like behavior in this way (i.e., Bond, ; Dawkins, ; Á. Kristjánsson et al, ). Wolfe et al () used a “hybrid foraging search” paradigm, that combines search of the contents of memory and foraging. They found that not only is performance biased toward the previous target type, but, in addition, memory has been reconfigured such that a repeated target type can be confirmed faster than a new target type.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

mentioning

confidence: 52%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…You are looking for laundry that needs to be washed, stuffed animals that go on the bed, building blocks that should be in their box, and those library books that are now 3 weeks overdue. This is a Bhybrid foraging^task (Wolfe, Aizenman, Boettcher, & Cain, 2016). In hybrid foraging tasks, observers are searching for multiple instances of several types of target at the same time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidance and selection history in hybrid foraging visual search

Wolfe

Cain

Aizenman

2019

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Hybrid Foraging tasks, observers search for multiple instances of several types of target. Collecting all the dirty laundry and kitchenware out of a child's room would be a real-world example. How are such foraging episodes structured? A series of four experiments shows that selection of one item from the display makes it more likely that the next item will be of the same type. This pattern holds if the targets are defined by basic features like color and shape but not if they are defined by their identity (e.g., the letters p & d). Additionally, switching between target types during search is expensive in time, with longer response times between successive selections if the target type changes than if they are the same. Finally, the decision to leave a screen/patch for the next screen in these foraging tasks is imperfectly consistent with the predictions of optimal foraging theory. The results of these hybrid foraging studies cast new light on the ways in which prior selection history guides subsequent visual search in general.

show abstract

“…For example, our foraging task is limited to a sequence of the same search task (finding T shapes). Would these results look similar if observers were performing a "hybrid search" task (Wolfe, 2012;Wolfe, Aizenman, Boettcher, & Cain, 2016), in which observers search for instance(s) of any of several different target types? For example, if you are currently collecting a nail, would you already be searching for a hammer (or something less related)?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Looking ahead: When do you find the next item in foraging visual search?

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many real-world visual tasks involve searching for multiple instances of a target (e.g., picking ripe berries). What strategies do observers use when collecting items in this type of search? Do they wait to finish collecting the current item before starting to look for the next target, or do they search ahead for future targets? We utilized behavioral and eye-tracking measures to distinguish between these two possibilities in foraging search. Experiment 1 used a color wheel technique in which observers searched for T shapes among L shapes while all items independently cycled through a set of colors. Trials were abruptly terminated, and observers reported both the color and location of the next target that they intended to click. Using observers' color reports to infer target-finding times, we demonstrate that observers found the next item before the time of the click on the current target. We validated these results in Experiment 2 by recording fixation locations around the time of each click. Experiment 3 utilized a different procedure, in which all items were intermittently occluded during the trial. We then calculated a distribution of when targets were visible around the time of each click, allowing us to infer when they were most likely found. In a fourth and final experiment, observers indicated the locations of multiple future targets after the search was abruptly terminated. Together, our results provide converging evidence to demonstrate that observers can find the next target before collecting the current target and can typically forage one to two items ahead.

show abstract

Hybrid foraging search: Searching for multiple instances of multiple types of target

Cited by 50 publications

References 38 publications

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

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

Guidance and selection history in hybrid foraging visual search

Looking ahead: When do you find the next item in foraging visual search?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About