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

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.

[1]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[2]  R. Dukas,et al.  Behavioural and ecological consequences of limited attention. , 2002, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[3]  J. Stroop Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. , 1992 .

[4]  P. Roelfsema,et al.  Different States in Visual Working Memory: When It Guides Attention and When It Does Not , 2022 .

[5]  U. Neisser VISUAL SEARCH. , 1964, Scientific American.

[6]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Situating visual search , 2011, Vision Research.

[7]  L. Tinbergen The natural control of insects in pinewoods. I. Factors influencing the intensity of predation by songbirds , 1960 .

[8]  D. Tulsky,et al.  Memory Span on the Wechsler Scales , 2004, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[9]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Hybrid foraging search: Searching for multiple instances of multiple types of target , 2016, Vision Research.

[10]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  TO SEE OR NOT TO SEE: The Need for Attention to Perceive Changes in Scenes , 1997 .

[11]  Árni Kristjánsson,et al.  Reconsidering Visual Search , 2015, i-Perception.

[12]  B. Hood,et al.  Is Visual Search Really like Foraging? , 2001, Perception.

[13]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Deciding where to attend: priming of pop-out drives target selection. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  S. Shettleworth,et al.  Detection of cryptic prey: search image or search rate? , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[16]  J. Ridley Studies of Interference in Serial Verbal Reactions , 2001 .

[17]  J. Duncan,et al.  Visual search and stimulus similarity. , 1989, Psychological review.

[18]  Harold Pashler,et al.  A Boolean map theory of visual attention. , 2007, Psychological review.

[19]  Iain D. Gilchrist,et al.  Visual search and foraging compared in a large-scale search task , 2008, Cognitive Processing.

[20]  Todd S Horowitz,et al.  The multi-item localization (MILO) task: Measuring the spatiotemporal context of vision for action , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

[21]  J. Jonides,et al.  Overlapping mechanisms of attention and spatial working memory , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[22]  M. Moinester,et al.  Sample size estimation for correlations with pre-specified confidence interval , 2014 .

[23]  M. Dawkins Shifts of ‘attention’ in chicks during feeding , 1971 .

[24]  Maria Concetta Morrone,et al.  Professor Adriana Fiorentini: 1/11/1926–29/2/2016 , 2016, i-Perception.

[25]  S. Shettleworth,et al.  Detection of cryptic prey: search image or search rate? , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[26]  A Treisman,et al.  Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries. , 1988, Psychological review.

[27]  Gazzaniga,et al.  29 Short-Term Memory for the Rapid Deployment of Visual Attention , 2004 .

[28]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Visual Search Revived: The Slopes Are Not That Slippery: A Reply to Kristjansson (2015) , 2016, i-Perception.

[29]  Bruce D. McCandliss,et al.  Testing the Efficiency and Independence of Attentional Networks , 2002, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[30]  Jeremy M Wolfe,et al.  When is it time to move to the next raspberry bush? Foraging rules in human visual search. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[31]  Thomas T. Hills,et al.  Adaptive Lévy Processes and Area-Restricted Search in Human Foraging , 2013, PloS one.

[32]  A. Treisman Features and Objects: The Fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture , 1988, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[33]  Stephen P. Ellner,et al.  Information Processing and Prey Detection , 1993 .

[34]  Z W Pylyshyn,et al.  Tracking multiple independent targets: evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. , 1988, Spatial vision.

[35]  Árni Kristjánsson,et al.  Visual Foraging With Fingers and Eye Gaze , 2016, i-Perception.

[36]  Árni Kristjánsson,et al.  Common Attentional Constraints in Visual Foraging , 2014, PloS one.

[37]  U. Neisser,et al.  Selective looking: Attending to visually specified events , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[38]  Andrey Chetverikov,et al.  History effects in visual search for monsters: Search times, choice biases, and liking , 2015, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[39]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  In competition for the attentional template: can multiple items within visual working memory guide attention? , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  Edward Vul,et al.  A Bayesian Optimal Foraging Model of Human Visual Search , 2012, Psychological science.

[41]  A. Bond,et al.  Visual search and selection of natural stimuli in the pigeon: the attention threshold hypothesis. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[42]  G. Campana,et al.  Where perception meets memory: A review of repetition priming in visual search tasks , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[43]  L. Tinbergen The Natural Control of Insects in Pinewoods , 1960 .

[44]  J. Lachin Introduction to sample size determination and power analysis for clinical trials. , 1981, Controlled clinical trials.

[45]  Deniz Başkent,et al.  Normal-Hearing Listeners’ and Cochlear Implant Users’ Perception of Pitch Cues in Emotional Speech , 2015, i-Perception.

[46]  Steven B. Most,et al.  How not to be Seen: The Contribution of Similarity and Selective Ignoring to Sustained Inattentional Blindness , 2001, Psychological science.

[47]  D. A. Riley,et al.  Visual search for natural grains in pigeons (Columba livia): search images and selective attention. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.