Foraging tempo: Human run patterns in multiple-target search are constrained by the rate of successive responses

Human foraging tasks are beginning to provide new insights into the roles of vision, attention and working memory during complex, multiple-target search. Here, we test the idea that "foraging tempo" - the rate of successive target selections - helps determine patterns of behaviour in these tasks. Previously, we established that the majority of target selections during unconstrained foraging happen at regular, rapid intervals, forming the "cruise phase" of a foraging trial. Furthermore, we noted that when the temporal interval between cruise phase responses was longer, the tendency to switch between target categories increased. To directly explore this relationship, we modified our standard iPad foraging task so that observers had to synchronize each response with an auditory metronome signal. Across trials, we increased the tempo and examined how this changed patterns of foraging when targets were defined either by a single feature or by a conjunction of features. The results were very clear. Increasing tempo systematically decreased the tendency for participants to switch between target categories. While this was true for both feature and conjunction trials, there was also evidence that time constraints and target complexity interacted. As in our previous work, we also observed clear individual differences in how participants responded to changes in task difficulty. Overall, our results show that foraging tempo does influence the way participants respond, and we suggest this parameter may prove be useful in further explorations of group and individual strategies during multiple target search.

[1]  Árni Kristjánsson,et al.  Foraging through multiple target categories reveals the flexibility of visual working memory. , 2017, Acta psychologica.

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

[3]  Thomas T. Hills,et al.  Optimal foraging in semantic memory. , 2012, Psychological review.

[4]  Ian M. Thornton,et al.  Sequential Information Processing: The “Elevated First Response Effect” Can Contribute to Exaggerated Intra-Individual Variability in Older Adults , 2019, The Yale journal of biology and medicine.

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

[6]  Ronald A. Rensink On the Prospects for a Science of Visualization , 2014, Handbook of Human Centric Visualization.

[7]  Sarah M Cormiea,et al.  Winter is coming: How humans forage in a temporally structured environment. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[8]  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.

[9]  Árni Kristjánsson,et al.  Time Limits During Visual Foraging Reveal Flexible Working Memory Templates , 2018, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  Árni Kristjánsson,et al.  Are Foraging Patterns in Humans Related to Working Memory and Inhibitory Control , 2017 .

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

[12]  Josie Briscoe,et al.  Children with autism are neither systematic nor optimal foragers , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  J. F. Burkhardt Individual Flexibility and Tempo in the Ant, Pheidole dentata, the Influence of Group Size , 1998, Journal of Insect Behavior.

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

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

[16]  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.