Literature DB >> 12658534

How owls structure visual information.

Robert F van der Willigen1, Barrie J Frost, Hermann Wagner.   

Abstract

Recent studies on perceptual organization in humans claim that the ability to represent a visual scene as a set of coherent surfaces is of central importance for visual cognition. We examined whether this surface representation hypothesis generalizes to a non-mammalian species, the barn owl ( Tyto alba). Discrimination transfer combined with random-dot stimuli provided the appropriate means for a series of two behavioural experiments with the specific aims of (1) obtaining psychophysical measurements of figure-ground segmentation in the owl, and (2) determining the nature of the information involved. In experiment 1, two owls were trained to indicate the presence or absence of a central planar surface (figure) among a larger region of random dots (ground) based on differences in texture. Without additional training, the owls could make the same discrimination when figure and ground had reversed luminance, or were camouflaged by the use of uniformly textured random-dot stereograms. In the latter case, the figure stands out in depth from the ground when positional differences of the figure in two retinal images are combined (binocular disparity). In experiment 2, two new owls were trained to distinguish three-dimensional objects from holes using random-dot kinematograms. These birds could make the same discrimination when information on surface segmentation was unexpectedly switched from relative motion to half-occlusion. In the latter case, stereograms were used that provide the impression of stratified surfaces to humans by giving unpairable image features to the eyes. The ability to use image features such as texture, binocular disparity, relative motion, and half-occlusion interchangeably to determine figure-ground relationships suggests that in owls, as in humans, the structuring of the visual scene critically depends on how indirect image information (depth order, occlusion contours) is allocated between different surfaces.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12658534     DOI: 10.1007/s10071-003-0161-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anim Cogn        ISSN: 1435-9448            Impact factor:   3.084


  7 in total

Review 1.  The subtlety of simple eyes: the tuning of visual fields to perceptual challenges in birds.

Authors:  Graham R Martin
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2014-01-06       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 2.  From optics to attention: visual perception in barn owls.

Authors:  Wolf M Harmening; Hermann Wagner
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2011-07-07       Impact factor: 1.836

3.  Not like night and day: the nocturnal letter-winged kite does not differ from diurnal congeners in orbit or endocast morphology.

Authors:  Aubrey Keirnan; Trevor H Worthy; Jeroen B Smaers; Karine Mardon; Andrew N Iwaniuk; Vera Weisbecker
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 3.653

4.  Contrast response functions in the visual wulst of the alert burrowing owl: a single-unit study.

Authors:  Pedro Gabrielle Vieira; João Paulo Machado de Sousa; Jerome Baron
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 5.  What Drives Bird Vision? Bill Control and Predator Detection Overshadow Flight.

Authors:  Graham R Martin
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 4.677

6.  Computer-animated stimuli to measure motion sensitivity: constraints on signal design in the Jacky dragon.

Authors:  Kevin L Woo; Guillaume Rieucau; Darren Burke
Journal:  Curr Zool       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 2.624

7.  Optocollic responses in adult barn owls (Tyto furcata).

Authors:  Hermann Wagner; Ina Pappe; Hans-Ortwin Nalbach
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2021-11-23       Impact factor: 1.836

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.