4.5 Article

Species difference in the timing of gaze movement between chimpanzees and humans

Journal

ANIMAL COGNITION
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages 879-892

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10071-011-0422-5

Keywords

Chimpanzee; Eye-tracking; Fixation duration; Gap-overlap

Funding

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)
  2. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) [16002001, 19300091, 20002001, 212299]
  3. JSPS/MEXT global COE [D07, A06]
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23220006, 09J02299] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

How do humans and their closest relatives, chimpanzees, differ in their fundamental abilities for seeing the visual world? In this study, we directly compared the gaze movements of humans and the closest species, chimpanzees, using an eye-tracking system. During free viewing of a naturalistic scene, chimpanzees made more fixations per second (up to four) than did humans (up to three). This species difference was independent of the semantic variability of the presented scenes. The gap-overlap paradigm revealed that, rather than resulting from the sensitivity to the peripherally presented stimuli per se, the species difference reflected the particular strategy each species employed to solve the rivalry between central (fixated) and peripheral stimuli in their visual fields. Finally, when presented with a movie in which small images successively appeared/disappeared at random positions at the chosen presentation rate, chimpanzees tracked those images at the point of fixation for a longer time than did humans, outperforming humans in their speed of scanning. Our results suggest that chimpanzees and humans differ quantitatively in their visual strategies involving the timing of gaze movement. We discuss the functional reasons for each species' employing such specific strategies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available