The Change Detection Advantage for Animals: An Effect of Ancestral Priorities or Progeny of Experimental Design?

The “animate monitoring” hypothesis proposes that humans are evolutionarily predisposed to recruit attention toward animals. Support for this has repeatedly been obtained through the change detection paradigm where animals are detected faster than artifacts. The present study shows that the advantag...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Thomas Hagen, Bruno Laeng
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2016-06-01
Series:i-Perception
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669516651366
id doaj-10838253e30345a384d6a7a85594f128
record_format Article
spelling doaj-10838253e30345a384d6a7a85594f1282020-11-25T03:43:30ZengSAGE Publishingi-Perception2041-66952016-06-01710.1177/204166951665136610.1177_2041669516651366The Change Detection Advantage for Animals: An Effect of Ancestral Priorities or Progeny of Experimental Design?Thomas HagenBruno LaengThe “animate monitoring” hypothesis proposes that humans are evolutionarily predisposed to recruit attention toward animals. Support for this has repeatedly been obtained through the change detection paradigm where animals are detected faster than artifacts. The present study shows that the advantage for animals does not stand up to more rigorous experimental controls. Experiment 1 used artificially generated change detection scenes and counterbalanced identical target objects across two sets of scenes. Results showed that detection performance is determined more by the surrounding scene than semantic category. Experiment 2 used photographs from the original studies and replaced the target animals with artifacts in the exact same locations, such that the surrounding scene was kept constant while manipulating the target category. Results replicated the original studies when photos were not manipulated but agreed with the findings of our first experiment in that the advantage shifted to the artifacts when object categories replaced each other in the original scenes. A third experiment used inverted and blurred images so as to disrupt high-level perception but failed to erase the advantage for animals. Hence, the present set of results questions whether the supposed attentional advantage for animals can be supported by evidence from the change detection paradigm.https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669516651366
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Thomas Hagen
Bruno Laeng
spellingShingle Thomas Hagen
Bruno Laeng
The Change Detection Advantage for Animals: An Effect of Ancestral Priorities or Progeny of Experimental Design?
i-Perception
author_facet Thomas Hagen
Bruno Laeng
author_sort Thomas Hagen
title The Change Detection Advantage for Animals: An Effect of Ancestral Priorities or Progeny of Experimental Design?
title_short The Change Detection Advantage for Animals: An Effect of Ancestral Priorities or Progeny of Experimental Design?
title_full The Change Detection Advantage for Animals: An Effect of Ancestral Priorities or Progeny of Experimental Design?
title_fullStr The Change Detection Advantage for Animals: An Effect of Ancestral Priorities or Progeny of Experimental Design?
title_full_unstemmed The Change Detection Advantage for Animals: An Effect of Ancestral Priorities or Progeny of Experimental Design?
title_sort change detection advantage for animals: an effect of ancestral priorities or progeny of experimental design?
publisher SAGE Publishing
series i-Perception
issn 2041-6695
publishDate 2016-06-01
description The “animate monitoring” hypothesis proposes that humans are evolutionarily predisposed to recruit attention toward animals. Support for this has repeatedly been obtained through the change detection paradigm where animals are detected faster than artifacts. The present study shows that the advantage for animals does not stand up to more rigorous experimental controls. Experiment 1 used artificially generated change detection scenes and counterbalanced identical target objects across two sets of scenes. Results showed that detection performance is determined more by the surrounding scene than semantic category. Experiment 2 used photographs from the original studies and replaced the target animals with artifacts in the exact same locations, such that the surrounding scene was kept constant while manipulating the target category. Results replicated the original studies when photos were not manipulated but agreed with the findings of our first experiment in that the advantage shifted to the artifacts when object categories replaced each other in the original scenes. A third experiment used inverted and blurred images so as to disrupt high-level perception but failed to erase the advantage for animals. Hence, the present set of results questions whether the supposed attentional advantage for animals can be supported by evidence from the change detection paradigm.
url https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669516651366
work_keys_str_mv AT thomashagen thechangedetectionadvantageforanimalsaneffectofancestralprioritiesorprogenyofexperimentaldesign
AT brunolaeng thechangedetectionadvantageforanimalsaneffectofancestralprioritiesorprogenyofexperimentaldesign
AT thomashagen changedetectionadvantageforanimalsaneffectofancestralprioritiesorprogenyofexperimentaldesign
AT brunolaeng changedetectionadvantageforanimalsaneffectofancestralprioritiesorprogenyofexperimentaldesign
_version_ 1724519494287622144