Literature DB >> 18085924

Comparison of grouping abilities in humans (Homo sapiens) and baboons (Papio papio) with the Ebbinghaus illusion.

Carole Parron1, Joël Fagot.   

Abstract

This research comparatively assessed grouping mechanisms of humans (n = 8) and baboons (n = 8) in an illusory task that employs configurations of target and surrounding circles arranged to induce the Ebbinghaus (Titchener) illusion. Analyses of response behaviors and points of subjective equality demonstrated that only humans misjudged the central target size under the influence of the Ebbinghaus illusion, whereas baboons expressed a more veridical perception of target sizes. It is argued that humans adopted a global mode of stimulus processing of the illusory figure in our task that has favored the illusion. By contrast, a strong local mode of stimulus processing with attention restricted to the target must have prevented illusory effects in baboons. These findings suggest that monkeys and humans have evolved modes of object recognition that do not similarly rely on the same gestalt principles. Copyright 2007 APA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18085924     DOI: 10.1037/0735-7036.121.4.405

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comp Psychol        ISSN: 0021-9940            Impact factor:   2.231


  20 in total

1.  First- and second-order configural sensitivity for greeble stimuli in baboons.

Authors:  Carole Parron; Joël Fagot
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 1.986

2.  Children and monkeys overestimate the size of high-contrast stimuli.

Authors:  Audrey E Parrish; Michael J Beran
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-03-16       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Functional evolution of new and expanded attention networks in humans.

Authors:  Gaurav H Patel; Danica Yang; Emery C Jamerson; Lawrence H Snyder; Maurizio Corbetta; Vincent P Ferrera
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-07-13       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Do rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) perceive illusory motion?

Authors:  Christian Agrillo; Simone Gori; Michael J Beran
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 3.084

5.  Why do animals differ in their susceptibility to geometrical illusions?

Authors:  Lynna C Feng; Philippe A Chouinard; Tiffani J Howell; Pauleen C Bennett
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-04

6.  Perception of contextual size illusions by honeybees in restricted and unrestricted viewing conditions.

Authors:  Scarlett R Howard; Aurore Avarguès-Weber; Jair E Garcia; Devi Stuart-Fox; Adrian G Dyer
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-11-29       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Do you see what I see? A comparative investigation of the Delboeuf illusion in humans (Homo sapiens), rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella).

Authors:  Audrey E Parrish; Sarah F Brosnan; Michael J Beran
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn       Date:  2015-08-31       Impact factor: 2.478

Review 8.  A comparative psychophysical approach to visual perception in primates.

Authors:  Toyomi Matsuno; Kazuo Fujita
Journal:  Primates       Date:  2009-01-20       Impact factor: 2.163

9.  When less is more: like humans, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) misperceive food amounts based on plate size.

Authors:  Audrey E Parrish; Michael J Beran
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2013-08-15       Impact factor: 3.084

Review 10.  The Challenge of Illusory Perception of Animals: The Impact of Methodological Variability in Cross-Species Investigation.

Authors:  Maria Santacà; Christian Agrillo; Maria Elena Miletto Petrazzini
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-30       Impact factor: 2.752

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.