The selection balance: Contrasting value, proximity and priming in a multitarget foraging task
| dc.rights.license | open | en_US |
| hal.structure.identifier | Laboratoire de psychologie:Santé et qualité de vie | |
| dc.contributor.author | TAGU, Jerome
ORCID: 0000-0003-2331-7433 IDREF: 23318919X | |
| dc.contributor.author | KRISTJANSSON, Arni | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-07-12T09:25:42Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-07-12T09:25:42Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2022-01-01 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0010-0277 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | oai:crossref.org:10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104935 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://oskar-bordeaux.fr/handle/20.500.12278/140435 | |
| dc.description.abstractEn | A critical question in visual foraging concerns the mechanisms driving the next target selection. Observers first identify a set of candidate targets, and then select the best option among these candidates. Recent evidence suggests that target selection relies on internal biases towards proximity (nearest target from the last selection), priming (target from the same category as the last selection) and value (target associated with high value). Here, we tested the role of eye movements in target selection, and notably whether disabling eye movements during target selection could affect search strategy. We asked observers to perform four foraging tasks differing by selection modality and target value. During gaze foraging, participants had to accurately fixate the targets to select them and could not anticipate the next selection with their eyes, while during mouse foraging they selected the targets with mouse clicks and were free to move their eyes. We moreover manipulated both target value and proximity. Our results revealed notable individual differences in search strategy, confirming the existence of internal biases towards value, proximity and priming. Critically, there were no differences in search strategy between mouse and gaze foraging, suggesting that disabling eye movements during target selection did not affect foraging behaviour. These results importantly suggest that overt orienting is not necessary for target selection. This study provides fundamental information for theoretical conceptions of attentional selection, and emphasizes the importance of covert attention for target selection during visual foraging. | |
| dc.language.iso | EN | en_US |
| dc.rights | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States | * |
| dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/ | * |
| dc.source | crossref | |
| dc.subject.en | Foraging | |
| dc.subject.en | Visual search | |
| dc.subject.en | Visual attention | |
| dc.subject.en | Eye movements | |
| dc.subject.en | Target selection | |
| dc.title.en | The selection balance: Contrasting value, proximity and priming in a multitarget foraging task | |
| dc.type | Article de revue | en_US |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104935 | en_US |
| dc.subject.hal | Sciences cognitives/Psychologie | en_US |
| dc.subject.hal | Sciences de l'Homme et Société/Psychologie | en_US |
| dc.identifier.pubmed | 34673302 | en_US |
| bordeaux.journal | Cognition | en_US |
| bordeaux.volume | 218 | en_US |
| bordeaux.hal.laboratories | Laboratoire de psychologie (LabPsy) - EA4139 | en_US |
| bordeaux.institution | Université de Bordeaux | en_US |
| bordeaux.peerReviewed | oui | en_US |
| bordeaux.inpress | non | en_US |
| bordeaux.import.source | dissemin | |
| hal.export | false | |
| workflow.import.source | dissemin | |
| dc.rights.cc | CC BY-NC-ND | en_US |
| bordeaux.COinS | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.jtitle=Cognition&rft.date=2022-01-01&rft.volume=218&rft.eissn=0010-0277&rft.issn=0010-0277&rft.au=TAGU,%20Jerome&KRISTJANSSON,%20Arni&rft.genre=article |
