Articlei-Perception2016
The Change Detection Advantage for Animals: An Effect of Ancestral Priorities or Progeny of Experimental Design?
Article in i-Perception, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stage-Specific Animate Attention Bias in Individuals with High and Low Autistic Traits: Behavioral and Eye-Tracking Evidence.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Does animacy affect visual statistical learning? Revisiting the effects of selective attention and animacy on visual statistical learning.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2024Article
- I like the way you move: how animate motion affects visual attention in early human infancy.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Review
- Animate monitoring is not uniform: implications for the animate monitoring hypothesis.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- A cautionary note on the studies using the picture-word interference paradigm: the unwelcome consequences of the random use of "in/animates".Frontiers in psychology · 2023Review
- How Native Background Affects Human Performance in Real-World Visual Object Detection: An Event-Related Potential Study.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Association Between Fear and Beauty Evaluation of Snakes: Cross-Cultural Findings.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The "animate monitoring" hypothesis proposes that humans are evolutionarily predisposed to recruit attention toward animals. Support for this has repeatedly been obtained through the change detection paradigm where animals are detected faster than artifacts. The present study shows that the advantage for animals does not stand up to more rigorous experimental controls. Experiment 1 used artificially generated change detection scenes and counterbalanced identical target objects across two sets of scenes. Results showed that detection performance is determined more by the surrounding scene than semantic category. Experiment 2 used photographs from the original studies and replaced the target animals with artifacts in the exact same locations, such that the surrounding scene was kept constant while manipulating the target category. Results replicated the original studies when photos were not manipulated but agreed with the findings of our first experiment in that the advantage shifted to the artifacts when object categories replaced each other in the original scenes. A third experiment used inverted and blurred images so as to disrupt high-level perception but failed to erase the advantage for animals. Hence, the present set of results questions whether the supposed attentional advantage for animals can be supported by evidence from the change detection paradigm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.