2024
No evidence of attentional prioritization for threatening targets in visual search
ZSIDO, Andras N.; Michael C. HOUT; Marko HERNANDEZ; Brian WHITE; Jakub POLÁK et. al.Základní údaje
Originální název
No evidence of attentional prioritization for threatening targets in visual search
Autoři
ZSIDO, Andras N. (garant); Michael C. HOUT; Marko HERNANDEZ; Brian WHITE; Jakub POLÁK (203 Česká republika, domácí); Botond L. KISS a Hayward J. GODWIN
Vydání
Scientific reports, London, Nature Publishing Group, 2024, 2045-2322
Další údaje
Jazyk
angličtina
Typ výsledku
Článek v odborném periodiku
Obor
50103 Cognitive sciences
Stát vydavatele
Velká Británie a Severní Irsko
Utajení
není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství
Odkazy
Impakt faktor
Impact factor: 3.900
Organizační jednotka
AMBIS vysoká škola, a.s.
UT WoS
001185083700056
Klíčová slova anglicky
Visual search; Snake; Treat detection; Visual feature; Afective feature; Negative valence
Štítky
Změněno: 31. 3. 2025 17:20, Ing. Kateřina Lendrová
Anotace
V originále
Throughout human evolutionary history, snakes have been associated with danger and threat. Research has shown that snakes are prioritized by our attentional system, despite many of us rarely encountering them in our daily lives. We conducted two high-powered, pre-registered experiments (total N = 224) manipulating target prevalence to understand this heightened prioritization of threatening targets. Target prevalence refers to the proportion of trials wherein a target is presented; reductions in prevalence consistently reduce the likelihood that targets will be found. We reasoned that snake targets in visual search should experience weaker effects of low target prevalence compared to non-threatening targets (rabbits) because they should be prioritized by searchers despite appearing rarely. In both experiments, we found evidence of classic prevalence effects but (contrasting prior work) we also found that search for threatening targets was slower and less accurate than for nonthreatening targets. This surprising result is possibly due to methodological issues common in prior studies, including comparatively smaller sample sizes, fewer trials, and a tendency to exclusively examine conditions of relatively high prevalence. Our findings call into question accounts of threat prioritization and suggest that prior attention findings may be constrained to a narrow range of circumstances.