Winter is Coming: How Humans Forage in a Temporally Structured Environment

Overview

Journal J Vis

Specialty Ophthalmology

Date 2015 Aug 4

PMID 26237297

Citations 12

Authors

Daryl Fougnie

Sarah M Cormiea

Jinxia Zhang

George A Alvarez

Jeremy M Wolfe

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Much is known about visual search for single targets, but relatively little about how participants "forage" for multiple targets. One important question is how long participants will search before moving to a new display. Evidence suggests that participants should leave when intake drops below the average rate ("optimal foraging," Charnov, 1976). However, the real world has temporal structure (e.g., seasons) that could influence behavior. Does it matter if winter is coming and the next display will be worse than the last? We gave participants a series of search displays and asked them to collect targets as fast as possible. Target density was structured-rising and falling systematically across trials. We measured the duration for which participants foraged in each display (trials were terminated by participants). Foraging behavior was affected by temporal structure-counter to a simple optimal foraging account, observers searched displays longer when quality was falling compared to rising (Experiments 1 and 2). Additionally, we found that temporal structure altered explicit predictions about display quality (Experiment 2). These results demonstrate that foraging theories need to consider richer models of observers' representations of the world.

Citing Articles

No matter what you do, travel is travel in visual foraging.

Hong I, Yan G, Wolfe J Vision Res. 2024; 224:108491.

PMID: 39340958 PMC: 11464173. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2024.108491.

Research on re-searching: interrupted foraging is not disrupted foraging.

Hong I, Wolfe J Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2024; 9(1):30.

PMID: 38748189 PMC: 11096138. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-024-00556-8.

Outlier rejection in the process of pooling.

Lee M, Chong S Atten Percept Psychophys. 2024; 86(2):666-679.

PMID: 38191757 DOI: 10.3758/s13414-023-02842-x.

Interpersonal prior information informs ensemble coding through the co-representation process.

Zheng Z, Wang J Psychon Bull Rev. 2023; 31(2):886-896.

PMID: 37783900 DOI: 10.3758/s13423-023-02390-3.

Understanding Mood of the Crowd with Facial Expressions: Majority Judgment for Evaluation of Statistical Summary Perception.

Ueda Y Atten Percept Psychophys. 2022; 84(3):843-860.

PMID: 35292930 PMC: 9001560. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-022-02449-8.

References

Woodman G, Luck S . Electrophysiological measurement of rapid shifts of attention during visual search. Nature. 1999; 400(6747):867-9. DOI: 10.1038/23698. View

Crawford L, Huttenlocher J, Engebretson P . Category effects on estimates of stimuli: perception or reconstruction?. Psychol Sci. 2001; 11(4):280-4. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00256. View

Wolfe J . Moving towards solutions to some enduring controversies in visual search. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003; 7(2):70-76. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(02)00024-4. View

Charnov E . Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol. 1976; 9(2):129-36. DOI: 10.1016/0040-5809(76)90040-x. View

Neisser U . VISUAL SEARCH. Sci Am. 1964; 210:94-102. DOI: 10.1038/scientificamerican0664-94. View

Schneider D, Logan G . Modeling task switching without switching tasks: a short-term priming account of explicitly cued performance. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2005; 134(3):343-67. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.134.3.343. View

Sailor K, Antoine M . Is memory for stimulus magnitude Bayesian?. Mem Cognit. 2005; 33(5):840-51. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193079. View

Leber A, Egeth H . It's under control: top-down search strategies can override attentional capture. Psychon Bull Rev. 2006; 13(1):132-8. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193824. View

Mellgren R . Foraging in a simulated natural environment: There's a rat loose in the lab. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982; 38(1):93-100. PMC: 1347832. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1982.38-93. View

10.

Crawford L, Huttenlocher J, Hedges L . Within-category feature correlations and Bayesian adjustment strategies. Psychon Bull Rev. 2006; 13(2):245-50. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193838. View

11.

Lamy D, Carmel T, Egeth H, Leber A . Effects of search mode and intertrial priming on singleton search. Percept Psychophys. 2006; 68(6):919-32. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193355. View

12.

Bar M . The proactive brain: using analogies and associations to generate predictions. Trends Cogn Sci. 2007; 11(7):280-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.05.005. View

13.

Brady T, Chun M . Spatial constraints on learning in visual search: modeling contextual cuing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007; 33(4):798-815. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.33.4.798. View

14.

Brascamp J, Knapen T, Kanai R, Noest A, van Ee R, van den Berg A . Multi-timescale perceptual history resolves visual ambiguity. PLoS One. 2008; 3(1):e1497. PMC: 2204053. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001497. View

15.

Feldman N, Griffiths T, Morgan J . The influence of categories on perception: explaining the perceptual magnet effect as optimal statistical inference. Psychol Rev. 2009; 116(4):752-782. PMC: 2785510. DOI: 10.1037/a0017196. View

16.

Wolfe J, Palmer E, Horowitz T . Reaction time distributions constrain models of visual search. Vision Res. 2009; 50(14):1304-11. PMC: 2891283. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2009.11.002. View

17.

Huang J, Sekuler R . Distortions in recall from visual memory: two classes of attractors at work. J Vis. 2010; 10(2):24.1-27. PMC: 4104522. DOI: 10.1167/10.2.24. View

18.

Corbett J, Fischer J, Whitney D . Facilitating stable representations: serial dependence in vision. PLoS One. 2011; 6(1):e16701. PMC: 3031612. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016701. View

19.

Palmer J . Attentional limits on the perception and memory of visual information. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1990; 16(2):332-50. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.16.2.332. View

20.

Hayden B, Pearson J, Platt M . Neuronal basis of sequential foraging decisions in a patchy environment. Nat Neurosci. 2011; 14(7):933-9. PMC: 3553855. DOI: 10.1038/nn.2856. View