Investigating Visual Perception and Cognition in Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) Through Visual Search and Related Tasks: From Basic to Complex Processes

  • Masaki Tomonaga


Our visual environment is filled with an abundance of objects. When we see these objects, our visual system initially processes their features in a parallel manner and then integrates these features into objects using selective attention. It has been about 20 years since Treisman first proposed this “feature integration theory” (Treisman and Gelade 1980). Visual search and texture segregation tasks have revealed many interesting phenomena directly related to the feature integration theory: “pop-out”, search asymmetry, conjunction search, etc. Based on these findings, this theory was modified (Treisman and Sato 1990), and alternative models have also been proposed (e.g., guided search models, Wolfe 1994a; Wolfe et al. 1989).


Visual Search Negative Priming Display Size Visual Search Task Biological Motion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahissar M, Hochstein S (1996) Learning pop-out detection: specificities to stimulus characteristics. Vision Res 36:3487–3500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aks DJ, Enns JT (1992) Visual search for direction of shade is influenced by apparent depth. Percept Psychophys 52:63–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Allan SE, Blough DS (1989) Feature-based search asymmetries in pigeons and humans. Percept Psychophys 46:456–464PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Berlucchi G, Crea F, di-Stefano M, Tassinari G (1977) Influence of spatial stimulus-response compatibility on reaction time of ipsilateral and contralateral hand to lateralized light stimuli. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 3:505–517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blake R (1993) Cats perceive biological motion. Psychol Sci 4:54–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blough DS (1977) Visual search in the pigeon: hunt and peck method. Science 196:1013–1014PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blough DS (1979) Effects of the number and form of stimuli on visual search in the pigeon. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 5:211–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blough DS (1989) Odd-item search in pigeons: display size and transfer effects. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 15:14–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blough DS (1992) Features of forms in pigeon perception. In: Honig WK, Fetterman JG (eds) Cognitive aspects of stimulus control. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 263–277Google Scholar
  10. Blough DS, Blough PM (1997) Form perception and attention in pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 25:1–20Google Scholar
  11. Blough DS, Franklin JJ (1985) Pigeon discrimination of letters and other forms in texture displays. Percept Psychophys 38:523–532PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Blough PM (1989) Attentional priming and visual search in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 15:358–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bolster RB, Pribram KH (1993) Cortical involvement in visual scan in the monkey. Percept Psychophys 53:505–518PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Bruce C (1982) Face recognition by monkeys: absence of inversion effect. Neuropsychologia 20:515–521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bruce V (1988) Recognising faces. Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  16. Bruce V, Young A (1986) Understanding face recognition. Br J Psychol 77:305–327PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Cook RG (1992a) Acquisition and transfer of visual texture discriminations by pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 18:341–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cook RG (1992b) Dimensional organization and texture discrimination in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 18:354–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cook RG, Cavoto KK, Cavoto BR (1996) Mechanisms of multidimensional grouping, fusion, and search in avian texture discrimination. Anim Learn Behav 24:150–167Google Scholar
  20. Deruelle C, Fagot J (1998) Visual search for global/local stimulus features in humans and baboons. Psychon Bull Rev 5:476–481Google Scholar
  21. Diamond R, Carey S (1986) Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. J Exp Psychol: Gen 115:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dittrich WH, Lea SEG, Barrett J, Gurr PR (1998) Categorization of natural movements by pigeons: visual concept discrimination and biological motion. J Exp Anal Behav 70:281–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dursteler MR, von der Heydt R (1992, November) Visual search strategies of monkey and man. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society of Neuroscience, Anaheim, CAGoogle Scholar
  24. Egeth HE, Virzi RA, Garbart H (1984) Searching for conjunctively defined targets. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 10:32–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ellis HD (1986) Processes underlying face recognition. In: Bruyer R (ed) The neuropsychology of face perception and facial expression. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 1–27Google Scholar
  26. Enns JT, Rensink RA (1990) Sensitivity to three-dimensional orientation in visual search. Psychol Sci 1:323–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fox R, McDaniel C (1982) The perception of biological motion by human infants. Science 218:486–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fujita K, Kanazawa S (1994) Visual search in Japanese macaques. In: Research report of the 1992–1993 Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Monbusho (in Japanese). Inuyama, Japan, pp 12–20Google Scholar
  29. Fujita K, Ishikawa S, Tomonaga M, Matsuzawa T (1999) Development of initial knowledge in primate infants. In: Research report of the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Monbusho (in Japanese). Tokyo, pp 59–66Google Scholar
  30. Gurnsey R, Browse RA (1989) Asymmetries in visual texture discrimination. Spat Vision 4:31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hansen CH, Hansen RD (1988) Finding the face in the crowd: an anger superiority effect. J Personality Soc Psychol 54:917–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hasegawa R, Kato M, Mikami A (1997) Delayed visual search on a rhesus monkey (abstract only in Japanese). Primate Res 13:284Google Scholar
  33. He ZJ, Nakayama K (1992) Surfaces versus features in visual search. Nature 359:231–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Herman LM, Morrel-Samuels P, Pack AA (1990) Bottlenosed dolphin and human recognition of veridical and degraded video displays of an artificial gestural language. J Exp Psychol Gen 119:215–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hopkins WD, Morris RD, Savage-Rumbaugh ES (1991) Evidence for asymmetrical hemispheric priming using known and unknown warning stimuli in two language-trained chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Exp Psychol: Gen 120:46–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johansson G (1973) Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Percept Psychophys 14:201–211Google Scholar
  37. Johnston WA, Schwarting IS (1997) Novel popout: an enigma for conventional theories of attention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 23:622–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kleffner DA, Ramachandran VS (1992) On the perception of shape from shading. Percept Psychophys 52:18–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Kuehn SM, Jolicoeur P (1994) Impact of quality of the image, orientation, and similarity of the stimuli on visual search for faces. Perception 23:95–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kuroshima H (1999, September) Comparison of search asymmetries between humans and pigeons. Paper presented at the 63rd annual meeting of the Japanese Psychological Association, Nagoya, JapanGoogle Scholar
  41. Mackay HA (1991) Conditional stimulus control. In: Iversen IH, Lattal KA (eds) Experimental analysis of behavior, Part 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 301–350Google Scholar
  42. Maylor EA, Hockey R (1985) Inhibitory component of externally controlled covert orienting in visual space. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 11:777–787PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mikami A (1999) Analyses of brain mechanisms underlying the visual search behavior of primates. In: The Mitsubishi Foundation annual report 1998 (in Japanese). Tokyo, pp 257–259Google Scholar
  44. Miura K, Kawabata H (1999) Effects of relative orientation differences on the detection of shading information: tests with visual search tasks. Paper presented at the 63rd annual meeting of the Japanese Psychological Association, Nagoya, JapanGoogle Scholar
  45. Neely JH (1977) Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. J Exp Psychol Gen 106:226–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nothdurft HC (1993) Faces and facial expressions do not pop out. Perception 22:1287–1298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Olivers CNL, van der Helm PA (1998) Symmetry and selective attention: a dissociation between effortless perception and serial search. Percept Psychophys 60:1101–1116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Omori E (1997) Comparative study of visual perception using Johansson’s stimuli. In: Watanabe S, Chase S (eds) Pattern recognition in humans and animals. Keio University, Tokyo, pp 27–30Google Scholar
  49. Oram MW, Perrett DI (1994) Responses of anterior superior temporal polysensory (STPa) neurons to “biological motion” stimuli. J Cogn Neurosci 6:99–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Overman WA, Doty RW (1982) Hemispheric specialization displayed by man but not macaques for analysis of faces. Neuropsychologia 20:113–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Parr LA, Dove T, Hopkins WD (1998) Why faces may be special: evidence of the inversion effect in chimpanzees. J Cogn Neurosci 10:615–622PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pashler H (1987) Target-distractor discriminability in visual search. Percept Psychophys 41:285–302Google Scholar
  53. Pineda JA, Nava C (1993) Event-related potentials in macaque monkey during passive and attentional processing of faces in a priming paradigm. Behav Brain Res 53:177–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Posner MI (1980) Orienting of attention. Q J Exp Psychol 32:3–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Posner MI, Snyder CCR (1975) Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals. In: Rabbitt PMA, Dornic S (eds) Attention and performance, V. Academic Press, New York, pp 669–682Google Scholar
  56. Ramachandran VS (1988) Perception of shape from shading. Nature 331:163–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rosenfeld SA, Van Hoesen GW (1979) Face recognition in the rhesus monkey. Neuropsychologia 17:503–509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schneider W, Shiffrin RM (1977) Controlled and automatic human information processing. I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychol Rev 84:1–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shiffrin RM, Schneider W (1977) Controlled and automatic human information processing. II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychol Rev 84:127–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sireteanu R, Rettenbach R (1995) Perceptual learning in visual search: fast, enduring, but, non-specific. Vision Res 35:2037–2043PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Spinelli D, Antonucci G, Goodenough DR, Pizzamiglio L, Zoccolotti P (1991) Psychological mechanisms underlying the rod-and-frame illusion. In: Wapner S, Demick J (eds) Field dependence-independence: cognitive style across the life span. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 37–60Google Scholar
  62. Stins JF, Michaels CF (1997) Stimulus-target compatibility for reaching movements. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 23:756–767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Suzuki, S, Cavanagh P (1995) Facial organization blocks access to low-level features: an object inferiority effect. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 21:901–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tipper SP (1985) The negative priming effect: inhibitory priming by ignored objects. Q J Exp Psychol 37A:571–590Google Scholar
  65. Tipper SP, Lortie C, Baylis GC (1992) Selective reaching: evidence for action-centered attention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 18:891–905PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tomonaga M (1993a) Use of multiple-alternative matching-to-sample in the study of visual search in a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). J Comp Psychol 107:75–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tomonaga M (1993b) A search for search asymmetry in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Percept Motor Skills 76:1287–1295PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Tomonaga M (1994a) How laboratory-raised Japanese monkeys (Macaca fuscata) perceive rotated photographs of monkeys: evidence for an inversion effect in face perception. Primates 35:155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tomonaga M (1994b, October) Search asymmetry in the chimpanzee. II. Does a tilted line pop out among the vertical lines? Paper presented at the 58th annual meeting of the Japanese Psychological Association, Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  70. Tomonaga M (1995a) Visual search by chimpanzees (Pan): assessment of controlling relations. J Exp Anal Behav 63:175–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tomonaga M (1995b) Transfer of odd-item search performance in a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Percept Motor Skills 80:35–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Tomonaga M (1997a) Precuing the target location in visual searching by a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes): effects of precue validity. Jpn Psychol Res 39:200–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tomonaga M (1997b) Search asymmetry in the chimpanzee. III (abstract only in Japanese). Jpn J Anim Psychol 47:200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tomonaga M (1997c, September) Visual search for biological motion patterns in the chimpanzee. Paper presented at the 61st annual meeting of the Japanese Psychological Association, Nishinomiya, JapanGoogle Scholar
  75. Tomonaga M (1998a) Perception of shape from shading in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens). Anim Cogn 1:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tomonaga M (1998b, October) Priming effects on the discrimination performance in the chimpanzees. Paper presented at the 62nd annual meeting of the Japanese Psychological Association, Koganei, JapanGoogle Scholar
  77. Tomonaga M (1998c) Visual search for biological motion patterns in the chimpanzee. II (Japanese abstract). Jpn J Anim Psychol 48:106Google Scholar
  78. Tomonaga M (1999a) Visual texture segregation by the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Behav Brain Res 99:209–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tomonaga M (1999b) Inversion effect in perception of human faces in a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Primates 40:417–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tomonaga M (1999c) Visual search for orientation of faces by a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) (in Japanese with English summary). Primate Res 15:215–229Google Scholar
  81. Tomonaga M, Itakura S, Matsuzawa T (1993) Superiority of conspecific faces and reduced inversion effect in face perception by a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Folia Primatol 61:110–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tong F, Nakayama K (1999) Robust representations for faces: evidence from visual search. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:1016–1035PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Treisman A (1985) Preattentive processing in vision. Comput Vision, Graphics, Image Process 31:156–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Treisman A, Gelade G (1980) A feature-integration theory of attention. Cogn Psychol 12:97–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Treisman A, Gormican S (1988) Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries. Psychol Rev 95:15–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Treisman A, Sato S (1990) Conjunction search revisited. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 16:459–478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Treisman A, Schmidt H (1982) Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects. Cogn Psychol 14:107–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Treisman A, Souther J (1985) Search asymmetry: a diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features. J Exp Psychol Gen 114:285–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Treisman A, Cavanagh P, Fischer B, Ramachandran VS von der Heydt R (1990) Form perception and attention: striate cortex and beyond. In: Spillmann L, Werner JS (eds) Visual perception: the neurophysiological foundations. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 273–316Google Scholar
  90. Wang Q, Cavanagh P, Green M (1994) Familiarity and pop-out in visual search. Percept Psychophys 56:495–500PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Wenderoth PM (1973) The effects of tilted outline frames and intersecting line patterns on judgments of vertical. Percept Psychophys 14:242–248Google Scholar
  92. Wilkinson F (1986) Visual texture segmentation in cats. Behav Brain Res 19:71–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wilkinson F (1990) Texture segmentation. In: Stebbins WC, Berkley MA (eds) Comparative perception, vol 2. Wiley, New York, pp 125–156Google Scholar
  94. Wolfe JM (1994a) Guided search 2.0: a revised model of visual search. Psychon Bull Rev 1:202–238Google Scholar
  95. Wolfe JM (1994b) Visual search in continuous, naturalistic stimuli. Vision Res 34:1187–1195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wolfe JM, Cave KR, Franzel SL (1989) Guided search: an alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 15:419–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wright AA, Roberts WA (1996) Monkey and human face perception: inversion effects for human faces but not for monkey faces or scenes. J Cogn Neurosci 8:278–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Yamaguchi MK, Fujita K (1999) Perception of biological motion by newly hatched chicks and quail. Perception 28(supplement):23–24Google Scholar
  99. Yin RK (1969) Looking at upside-down faces. J Exp Psychol 81:141–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Young MP (1995) Open questions about the neural mechanisms of visual pattern recognition. In: Gazzaniga MS (ed) The cognitive neurosciences. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 463–474Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Masaki Tomonaga
    • 1
  1. 1.Primate Research InstituteKyoto UniversityInuyama, AichiJapan

Personalised recommendations