FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2030461288> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2030461288 endingPage "R377" @default.
• W2030461288 startingPage "R376" @default.
• W2030461288 abstract "Detecting the direction of motion of other animals is critical for a variety of adaptive behaviours, including filial attachment and hunting prey. Two new studies support the view that some vertebrates, including humans, have primitive brain systems for the visual detection of other legged vertebrates. Detecting the direction of motion of other animals is critical for a variety of adaptive behaviours, including filial attachment and hunting prey. Two new studies support the view that some vertebrates, including humans, have primitive brain systems for the visual detection of other legged vertebrates. There is increasing evidence that many vertebrate species, including humans, have primitive neural pathways that ensure a bias to attend toward, or preferentially process, sensory information about members of the same species. For example, and as discussed later, newly hatched chicks and newborn humans attend to patterns that correspond to the head region of their likely caregivers [1Johnson M.H. Morton J. Biology and Cognitive Development: The Case of Face Recognition. Blackwell, Oxford1991Google Scholar]. The neural pathways supporting these primitive biases are amongst the evolutionary ancient elders of the vertebrate brain [2Johnson M.H. Sub-cortical face processing.Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2005; 6: 766-774Crossref PubMed Scopus (665) Google Scholar]. Two papers published recently in Current Biology[3Troje N.F. Westhoff C. The inversion effect in biological motion perception: Evidence for a “life detector”?.Curr. Biol. 2006; 16: 821-824Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (325) Google Scholar, 4Vallortigara G. Regolin L. Gravity bias in the interpretation of biological motion by inexperienced chicks.Curr. Biol. 2006; 16: R279-R280Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (117) Google Scholar] provide evidence for a hitherto undiscovered additional mechanism of this kind — one that detects the direction of biological motion of other legged vertebrates. The study of newly hatched dark-reared chicks has provided a rich source of information about the predispositions and biases present in the vertebrate visual system prior to the effects of visual experience. In one series of studies, it was established that chicks have a predisposition to attend to the head and neck region of hens [5Johnson M.H. Horn G. The development of filial preferences in the dark-reared chick.Anim. Behav. 1988; 36: 675-683Crossref Scopus (104) Google Scholar], and that in the natural environment this constrains visual learning, or imprinting, on an individual mother hen [6Horn G. Pathways of the past: The imprint of memory.Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2004; 5: 108-120Crossref PubMed Scopus (213) Google Scholar]. Strikingly, however, this predisposition was not selective to the chick's own species — far from it, in fact, as even the head and neck of similar sized predators were attractive to the chicks! Very similar biases to attend toward heads and faces have been identified in the human newborn from as young as nine minutes after birth [7Johnson M.H. Dziurawiec S. Ellis H.D. Morton J. Newborns preferential tracking of face-like stimuli and its subsequent decline.Cognition. 1991; 40: 1-19Crossref PubMed Scopus (957) Google Scholar], and these primitive biases may continue to bias processing even in adults [2Johnson M.H. Sub-cortical face processing.Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2005; 6: 766-774Crossref PubMed Scopus (665) Google Scholar]. While these biases depend on recognition of static patterns, there has also been significant interest in studying biological motion by using ‘point-light’ displays in which critical points on the limbs are marked by white dots and the rest of the body and background are black, so as not to be visible. Dynamic point-light displays allow biological motion, such as walking or running, to be studied without any other perceptual cues from the body of the moving animal [8Johansson G. Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis.Percept. Psychophys. 1973; 14: 201-211Crossref Scopus (2994) Google Scholar]. To the adult viewer, point-light displays of humans walking are easily recognisable. With computer control of such point-light displays the effects of scrambling different sets of dots can be investigated, allowing experimenters to ascertain the most important dots for perceiving different types of action. In the first of the recent studies, Troje and Westhoff [3Troje N.F. Westhoff C. The inversion effect in biological motion perception: Evidence for a “life detector”?.Curr. Biol. 2006; 16: 821-824Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (325) Google Scholar] investigated the effects of inverting and scrambling point-light displays of humans and animals walking on human adult perception. Participants were asked to indicate in which direction the animals were walking while they viewed point-light displays that were inverted and/or scrambled in different ways. Surprisingly, they found that adult humans can readily judge direction of motion from most scrambled point-light displays. This shows that the overall configuration of dots on the body is not important. Further, when only parts of the display were inverted, the participants' judgements were correct as long as the dots associated with the local motion of the feet remained intact and located at the bottom of the dot array. The authors interpret their findings as evidence for a visual filter that is tuned to the motion of the limbs of an animal in locomotion, and speculate that this mechanism serves as a general detection system for articulated terrestrial animals: a ‘life-detector’. Given that human adults have very considerable experience of the visual world it is perhaps not surprising if they have acquired the perceptual skill necessary for extracting the most informative features of biological motion. If the speculation that this is a primitive and basic mechanism for detecting other animals is correct, however, we might expect this to be evolutionarily ancient and therefore present before visual experience. This idea was tested in another recent study [4Vallortigara G. Regolin L. Gravity bias in the interpretation of biological motion by inexperienced chicks.Curr. Biol. 2006; 16: R279-R280Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (117) Google Scholar] that employed similar point-light stimuli, but where the participants were newly-hatched dark reared chicks. In this study, Vallortigara and Regolin [4Vallortigara G. Regolin L. Gravity bias in the interpretation of biological motion by inexperienced chicks.Curr. Biol. 2006; 16: R279-R280Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (117) Google Scholar] displayed upright and inverted point-light images depicting a walking hen. Chicks tended to align their body along the apparent direction of motion of an upright point-light hen, but not an inverted hen. Once again, it appears that when dots on the feet move as if on the ground, this is detected and influences the behavioural responses of the viewing animal. These findings support the idea of an evolutionarily ancient neural mechanism for detecting other legged vertebrates, and they join a growing body of evidence that specific neural systems are activated by the perception of biological motion in mammals, including man [9De Gelder B. Towards the neurobiology of emotional body language.Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2006; 7: 242-249Crossref PubMed Scopus (519) Google Scholar, 10Peelen M.V. Wigget A.J. Downing P.E. Patterns of fMRI activity dissociate overlapping functional brain areas that respond to biological motion.Neuron. 2006; 49: 815-822Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (304) Google Scholar]. Thus, humans appear to possess sophisticated neural mechanisms for the interpretation of complex sequences of action of other humans. Intriguingly, such mechanisms may often be extended to other species (such as when we attribute intentions to our pets). While the recent papers make a promising start in providing evidence for an evolutionarily old animal detector, there are some obvious lines for future research. First, do human newborns show a perceptual bias for attending toward point-light stimuli containing upright legged animals? While there are several studies examining older infants' perception of biological motion with similar stimuli [11Booth A.E. Pinto J. Bertenthal B.I. Perception of the symmetrical patterning of human gait by infants.Dev. Psychol. 2002; 38: 554-563Crossref PubMed Scopus (51) Google Scholar], this specific issue has yet to be addressed with newborns. A second question for future research concerns the nature of the task given to human adults. As Troje and Westhoff [3Troje N.F. Westhoff C. The inversion effect in biological motion perception: Evidence for a “life detector”?.Curr. Biol. 2006; 16: 821-824Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (325) Google Scholar] themselves note, it will be important to establish that similar results are obtained when adults are asked a question such as “Is this an animal?”, rather than being asked to determine which direction the animal is going in. Human adults are notoriously flexible and adaptive in their use of information from visual input [12Schyns P.G. Oliva A. Flexible, diagnosticity-driven, rather than fixed, perceptually determined scale selection in scene and face recognition.Perception. 1997; 26: 1027-1038Crossref PubMed Scopus (81) Google Scholar], and it may be that the oscillating dots on the feet are simply the best diagnostic cues in the specific task of determining direction of motion of an animal. Thus, it will be important to establish that the effect holds up even with different verbal instructions. If these further experiments produce the predicted results, then a fascinating new door of enquiry opens. In some developmental disorders, such as autism, there are deficits that appear to differentially affect perception of the social world. The mechanisms for these deficits are, as yet, poorly understood, but the detection of other animals may be foundational in processing the social world differently from that of inanimate objects." @default.
• W2030461288 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2030461288 creator A5050660463 @default.
• W2030461288 date "2006-05-01" @default.
• W2030461288 modified "2023-10-11" @default.
• W2030461288 title "Biological Motion: A Perceptual Life Detector?" @default.
• W2030461288 cites W1974195095 @default.
• W2030461288 cites W1980969283 @default.
• W2030461288 cites W2012758188 @default.
• W2030461288 cites W2047560633 @default.
• W2030461288 cites W2052412604 @default.
• W2030461288 cites W2068803198 @default.
• W2030461288 cites W2099634219 @default.
• W2030461288 cites W2126426685 @default.
• W2030461288 cites W2137184111 @default.
• W2030461288 cites W2145765358 @default.
• W2030461288 cites W2156534340 @default.
• W2030461288 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.04.008" @default.
• W2030461288 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16713949" @default.
• W2030461288 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W2030461288 type Work @default.
• W2030461288 sameAs 2030461288 @default.
• W2030461288 citedByCount "97" @default.
• W2030461288 countsByYear W20304612882012 @default.
• W2030461288 countsByYear W20304612882013 @default.
• W2030461288 countsByYear W20304612882014 @default.
• W2030461288 countsByYear W20304612882015 @default.
• W2030461288 countsByYear W20304612882016 @default.
• W2030461288 countsByYear W20304612882017 @default.
• W2030461288 countsByYear W20304612882018 @default.
• W2030461288 countsByYear W20304612882019 @default.
• W2030461288 countsByYear W20304612882020 @default.
• W2030461288 countsByYear W20304612882021 @default.
• W2030461288 countsByYear W20304612882022 @default.
• W2030461288 countsByYear W20304612882023 @default.
• W2030461288 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2030461288 hasAuthorship W2030461288A5050660463 @default.
• W2030461288 hasBestOaLocation W20304612881 @default.
• W2030461288 hasConcept C104114177 @default.
• W2030461288 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2030461288 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2030461288 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W2030461288 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W2030461288 hasConcept C20864712 @default.
• W2030461288 hasConcept C26760741 @default.
• W2030461288 hasConcept C31972630 @default.
• W2030461288 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2030461288 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2030461288 hasConceptScore W2030461288C104114177 @default.
• W2030461288 hasConceptScore W2030461288C15744967 @default.
• W2030461288 hasConceptScore W2030461288C169760540 @default.
• W2030461288 hasConceptScore W2030461288C180747234 @default.
• W2030461288 hasConceptScore W2030461288C188147891 @default.
• W2030461288 hasConceptScore W2030461288C20864712 @default.
• W2030461288 hasConceptScore W2030461288C26760741 @default.
• W2030461288 hasConceptScore W2030461288C31972630 @default.
• W2030461288 hasConceptScore W2030461288C41008148 @default.
• W2030461288 hasConceptScore W2030461288C86803240 @default.
• W2030461288 hasIssue "10" @default.
• W2030461288 hasLocation W20304612881 @default.
• W2030461288 hasLocation W20304612882 @default.
• W2030461288 hasOpenAccess W2030461288 @default.
• W2030461288 hasPrimaryLocation W20304612881 @default.
• W2030461288 hasRelatedWork W1969356596 @default.
• W2030461288 hasRelatedWork W2002280763 @default.
• W2030461288 hasRelatedWork W2069488266 @default.
• W2030461288 hasRelatedWork W2087440290 @default.
• W2030461288 hasRelatedWork W2144481990 @default.
• W2030461288 hasRelatedWork W2156698060 @default.
• W2030461288 hasRelatedWork W2354124289 @default.
• W2030461288 hasRelatedWork W2958651120 @default.
• W2030461288 hasRelatedWork W3158873841 @default.
• W2030461288 hasRelatedWork W3212104449 @default.
• W2030461288 hasVolume "16" @default.
• W2030461288 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2030461288 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2030461288 magId "2030461288" @default.
• W2030461288 workType "article" @default.