In search of rules behind environmental framing; the case of head pitch

BackgroundWhether, and how, animals move requires them to assess their environment to determine the most appropriate action and trajectory, although the precise way the environment is scanned has been little studied. We hypothesized that head attitude, which effectively frames the environment for the eyes, and the way it changes over time, would be modulated by the environment.MethodTo test this, we used a head-mounted device (Human-Interfaced Personal Observation platform - HIPOP) on people moving through three different environments; a botanical garden (‘green’ space), a reef (‘blue’ space), and a featureless corridor, to examine if head movement in the vertical axis differed between environments. Template matching was used to identify and quantify distinct behaviours.ConclusionsThe data on head pitch from all subjects and environments over time showed essentially continuous clear waveforms with varying amplitude and wavelength. There were three stylised behaviours consisting of smooth, regular peaks and troughs in head pitch angle and variable length fixations during which the head pitch remained constant. These three behaviours accounted for ca. 40 % of the total time, with irregular head pitch changes accounting for the rest. There were differences in rates of manifestation of behaviour according to environment as well as environmentally different head pitch values of peaks, troughs and fixations. Finally, although there was considerable variation in head pitch angles, the peak and trough values bounded most of the variation in the fixation pitch values. It is suggested that the constant waveforms in head pitch serve to inform people about their environment, providing a scanning mechanism. Particular emphasis to certain sectors is manifest within the peak and trough limits and these appear modulated by the distribution of the points where fixation, interpreted as being due to objects of interest, occurs. This behaviour explains how animals allocate processing resources to the environment and shows promise for movement studies attempting to elucidate which parts of the environment affect movement trajectories.

[1]  Neha Bhooshan,et al.  The Simulation of the Movement of Fish Schools , 2001 .

[2]  G. Roberts Why individual vigilance declines as group size increases , 1996, Animal Behaviour.

[3]  Rory P. Wilson,et al.  Prying into the intimate details of animal lives: use of a daily diary on animals , 2008 .

[4]  R. Marois,et al.  Capacity limits of information processing in the brain , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[5]  K Schmidt-Nielsen,et al.  Locomotion: energy cost of swimming, flying, and running. , 1972, Science.

[6]  E. Shepard Identification of animal movement patterns using tri-axial accelerometry , 2008 .

[7]  Rory P. Wilson,et al.  Trends and perspectives in animal‐attached remote sensing , 2005 .

[8]  Horst Bornemann,et al.  Fine-scale feeding behavior of Weddell seals revealed by a mandible accelerometer , 2010 .

[9]  Andrew T. Duchowski,et al.  Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice , 2003, Springer London.

[10]  James Walker,et al.  A new perspective on how humans assess their surroundings; derivation of head orientation and its role in ‘framing’ the environment , 2015, PeerJ.

[11]  Pascal Monestiez,et al.  Prey capture attempts can be detected in Steller sea lions and other marine predators using accelerometers , 2010, Polar Biology.

[12]  Rory P. Wilson,et al.  Tri-Axial Dynamic Acceleration as a Proxy for Animal Energy Expenditure; Should We Be Summing Values or Calculating the Vector? , 2012, PloS one.

[13]  Emily L. C. Shepard,et al.  Identification of imperial cormorant Phalacrocorax atriceps behaviour using accelerometers , 2009 .

[14]  K. Yoda,et al.  A new technique for monitoring the behaviour of free-ranging Adélie penguins. , 2001, The Journal of experimental biology.

[15]  Robert S Laramee,et al.  Prying into the intimate secrets of animal lives; software beyond hardware for comprehensive annotation in ‘Daily Diary’ tags , 2015, Movement ecology.

[16]  M. Giard,et al.  Auditory-Visual Integration during Multimodal Object Recognition in Humans: A Behavioral and Electrophysiological Study , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[17]  I. R. Inglis,et al.  Vigilance and Flock Size in Brent Geese: The Edge Effect , 1981 .

[18]  R. Pieters,et al.  A Review of Eye-Tracking Research in Marketing , 2008 .

[19]  Dan Witzner Hansen,et al.  Eye tracking in the wild , 2005, Comput. Vis. Image Underst..

[20]  M. Murray,et al.  Multisensory Integration: Flexible Use of General Operations , 2014, Neuron.

[21]  Kusum L. Ailawadi,et al.  Six Lessons for In-Store Marketing from Six Years of Mobile Eye-Tracking Research , 2014 .

[22]  Alan Kennedy,et al.  Book Review: Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures , 2016, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[23]  Richard Dewhurst,et al.  Using eye-tracking to trace a cognitive process: Gaze behavior during decision making in a natural environment , 2013 .

[24]  Ran Nathan,et al.  Using tri-axial acceleration data to identify behavioral modes of free-ranging animals: general concepts and tools illustrated for griffon vultures , 2012, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[25]  E. Revilla,et al.  A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  D. Pellerin,et al.  Different types of sounds influence gaze differently in videos , 2013 .

[27]  Dominic W. Hughes,et al.  Eye-Tracking Patterns in Schizophrenia , 1973, Science.

[28]  B. Stein,et al.  Interactions among converging sensory inputs in the superior colliculus. , 1983, Science.

[29]  Frederic Bartumeus,et al.  Animal movement, search strategies and behavioural ecology: a cross-disciplinary way forward. , 2010, The Journal of animal ecology.