Chasing Animals With Split Attention: Are Animals Prioritized in Visual Tracking?

Some evolutionary psychologists have hypothesized that animals have priority in human attention. That is, they should be detected and selected more efficiently than other types of objects, especially man-made ones. Such a priority mechanism should automatically deploy more attentional resources and...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Thomas Hagen, Thomas Espeseth, Bruno Laeng
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2018-08-01
Series:i-Perception
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669518795932
id doaj-bc5c8660995b454ab92d8b80657cbd06
record_format Article
spelling doaj-bc5c8660995b454ab92d8b80657cbd062020-11-25T03:43:39ZengSAGE Publishingi-Perception2041-66952018-08-01910.1177/2041669518795932Chasing Animals With Split Attention: Are Animals Prioritized in Visual Tracking?Thomas HagenThomas EspesethBruno LaengSome evolutionary psychologists have hypothesized that animals have priority in human attention. That is, they should be detected and selected more efficiently than other types of objects, especially man-made ones. Such a priority mechanism should automatically deploy more attentional resources and dynamic monitoring toward animal stimuli than nonanimals. Consequently, we postulated that variations of the multiple object or identity tracking and multiple event monitoring tasks should be particularly suitable paradigms for addressing the animate monitoring hypothesis, given their dynamic properties and dependency on divided attention. We used images of animals and artifacts and found neither a substantial sign of improvement in tracking the positions associated with animal stimuli nor a significant distracting effect of animals. We also failed to observe a significant prioritization in orders of response for positions associated with animals. While we observed an advantage for animals in event monitoring, this appeared to be dependent on properties of the task, as confirmed in further experiments. Moreover, we observed a small but inconclusive advantage for animals in identity accuracy. Thus, under certain conditions, some bias toward animals could be observed, but the evidence was weak and inconclusive. To conclude, effect sizes were generally small and not conclusively in favor of the expected attentional bias for animals. We found moderate to strong evidence that images of animals do not improve positional tracking, do not act as more effective distractors, are not selected prior to artifacts in the response phase, and are not easier to monitor for changes in size.https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669518795932
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Thomas Hagen
Thomas Espeseth
Bruno Laeng
spellingShingle Thomas Hagen
Thomas Espeseth
Bruno Laeng
Chasing Animals With Split Attention: Are Animals Prioritized in Visual Tracking?
i-Perception
author_facet Thomas Hagen
Thomas Espeseth
Bruno Laeng
author_sort Thomas Hagen
title Chasing Animals With Split Attention: Are Animals Prioritized in Visual Tracking?
title_short Chasing Animals With Split Attention: Are Animals Prioritized in Visual Tracking?
title_full Chasing Animals With Split Attention: Are Animals Prioritized in Visual Tracking?
title_fullStr Chasing Animals With Split Attention: Are Animals Prioritized in Visual Tracking?
title_full_unstemmed Chasing Animals With Split Attention: Are Animals Prioritized in Visual Tracking?
title_sort chasing animals with split attention: are animals prioritized in visual tracking?
publisher SAGE Publishing
series i-Perception
issn 2041-6695
publishDate 2018-08-01
description Some evolutionary psychologists have hypothesized that animals have priority in human attention. That is, they should be detected and selected more efficiently than other types of objects, especially man-made ones. Such a priority mechanism should automatically deploy more attentional resources and dynamic monitoring toward animal stimuli than nonanimals. Consequently, we postulated that variations of the multiple object or identity tracking and multiple event monitoring tasks should be particularly suitable paradigms for addressing the animate monitoring hypothesis, given their dynamic properties and dependency on divided attention. We used images of animals and artifacts and found neither a substantial sign of improvement in tracking the positions associated with animal stimuli nor a significant distracting effect of animals. We also failed to observe a significant prioritization in orders of response for positions associated with animals. While we observed an advantage for animals in event monitoring, this appeared to be dependent on properties of the task, as confirmed in further experiments. Moreover, we observed a small but inconclusive advantage for animals in identity accuracy. Thus, under certain conditions, some bias toward animals could be observed, but the evidence was weak and inconclusive. To conclude, effect sizes were generally small and not conclusively in favor of the expected attentional bias for animals. We found moderate to strong evidence that images of animals do not improve positional tracking, do not act as more effective distractors, are not selected prior to artifacts in the response phase, and are not easier to monitor for changes in size.
url https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669518795932
work_keys_str_mv AT thomashagen chasinganimalswithsplitattentionareanimalsprioritizedinvisualtracking
AT thomasespeseth chasinganimalswithsplitattentionareanimalsprioritizedinvisualtracking
AT brunolaeng chasinganimalswithsplitattentionareanimalsprioritizedinvisualtracking
_version_ 1724518442842718208