A Comparative Analysis of Global and Local Processing of Hierarchical Visual Stimuli in Young Children (Homo sapiens) and Monkeys (Cebus apella).

Abstract

Results obtained with preschool children (Homo sapiens) were compared with results previously obtained from capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) in matching-to-sample tasks featuring hierarchical visual stimuli. In Experiment 1, monkeys, in contrast with children, showed an advantage in matching the stimuli on the basis of their local features. These results were replicated in a 2nd experiment in which control trials enabled the authors to rule out that children used spurious cues to solve the matching task. In a 3rd experiment featuring conditions in which the density of the stimuli was manipulated, monkeys' accuracy in the processing of the global shape of the stimuli was negatively affected by the separation of the local elements, whereas children's performance was robust across testing conditions. Children's response latencies revealed a global precedence in the 2nd and 3rd experiments. These results show differences in the processing of hierarchical stimuli by humans and monkeys that emerge early during childhood.

Local and global auditory processing: Behavioral and ERP evidence

“…It is also interesting to note that the amount of interference of local pitch change direction on global processing was modulated by amount of global pitch change when local change remained constant. The global precedence effects observed in the current study are consistent with visual spatial processing findings that behavioral measures of global precedence are generally seen across a range of stimulus parameters (De Lillo, et al, 2005;Hoffman, 1980;Navon, 1981Navon, , 1991 and that these effects can be reduced by increasing the difficulty of the global perception task (Amirkhiabani & Lovegrove, 1996; Antes & Mann, 1894).…”

“…It is also interesting to note that the amount of interference of local pitch change direction on global processing was modulated by amount of global pitch change when local change remained constant. The global precedence effects observed in the current study are consistent with visual spatial processing findings that behavioral measures of global precedence are generally seen across a range of stimulus parameters (De Lillo, et al, 2005;Hoffman, 1980;Navon, 1981Navon, , 1991 and that these effects can be reduced by increasing the difficulty of the global perception task (Amirkhiabani & Lovegrove, 1996; Antes & Mann, 1894).Asymmetric interference effects were evident in evoked responses even under conditions in which congruency effects on accuracy were similar at the local and global levels. Superficially, the timing of local-on-global interference effects as indexed by ERPs for visual hierarchical figures (Han & Chen, 1996;Han et al, 1999;Han et al, 2000a;Johannes et al, 1996) and auditory stimuli is very similar.…”

“…Global precedence effects are also found in studies employing selective attention designs; global discrimination requires less time and is less affected by what is presented at the local level (Koivisto & Revonsuo, 2004;Pomerantz, 1983). Global precedence effects are found with a wide variety of stimuli presented at a range of visual angles (Boer & Keuss, 1982;De Lillo, Spinozzi, Truppa, & Naylor, 2005;Hoffman, 1980;Koivisto & Revonsuo, 2004;Navon, 1977Navon, , 1981Navon, , 1991 but at the extremes can be mediated by attention, size and shape of the items, and level of processing (Blanca & Alarcón, 2002;Kinchla, Solis-Macias, & Hoffman, 1983;Shedden & Reid, 2001). Furthermore, the two measures of global precedence can be dissociated (Han, Yund, & Woods, 2003;Heinze & Münte, 1993;Lamb, Robertson, & Knight, 1989).…”

What’s in a face (made of foods)? Comparing children’s and monkey’s perception of faces in face-like images of food

“…Interestingly, altering the spatial proximity of elements within an array impacts visual processing of these stimuli by primates. Decreasing inter-element distance eliminates the local advantage for capuchin monkeys (De Lillo et al, 2005;Spinozzi et al, 2003), baboons (Deruelle & Fagot, 1998;Fagot & Deruelle, 1997), and chimpanzees (Fagot & Tomonaga, 1999), and even reverses it to a global advantage for cottontop tamarins (Neiworth et al, 2006).…”

“…When presented with multi-element arrays (e.g., a large letter F comprised of smaller letter Es), several monkey species perceive the individual items (i.e., the local features) prior to and sometimes more accurately than the global configuration, including rhesus macaques (Hopkins & Washburn, 2002), baboons (Deruelle & Fagot, 1998;Fagot & Deruelle, 1997), capuchin monkeys (De Lillo, Spinozzi, Truppa, & Naylor, 2005;Spinozzi, De Lillo, & Salvi, 2006;Spinozzi, De Lillo, & Truppa, 2003;Spinozzi, De Lillo, Truppa, & Castorina, 2009), and cotton-top tamarins (Neiworth, Gleichman, Olinick, & Lamp, 2006). This local processing bias is contrasted with a hallmark global advantage in typically-developing humans who process visual stimuli at the global level first (e.g., Broadbent, 1977;Kimchi, 1992;Lamb & Robertson, 1988;Navon, 1977Navon, , 1981.…”