2 results
Contributors
-
- By Brittany L. Anderson-Montoya, Heather R. Bailey, Carryl L. Baldwin, Daphne Bavelier, Jameson D. Beach, Jeffrey S. Bedwell, Kevin B. Bennett, Richard A. Block, Deborah A. Boehm-Davis, Corey J. Bohil, David B. Boles, Avinoam Borowsky, Jessica Bramlett, Allison A. Brennan, J. Christopher Brill, Matthew S. Cain, Meredith Carroll, Roberto Champney, Kait Clark, Nancy J. Cooke, Lori M. Curtindale, Clare Davies, Patricia R. DeLucia, Andrew E. Deptula, Michael B. Dillard, Colin D. Drury, Christopher Edman, James T. Enns, Sara Irina Fabrikant, Victor S. Finomore, Arthur D. Fisk, John M. Flach, Matthew E. Funke, Andre Garcia, Adam Gazzaley, Douglas J. Gillan, Rebecca A. Grier, Simen Hagen, Kelly Hale, Diane F. Halpern, Peter A. Hancock, Deborah L. Harm, Mary Hegarty, Laurie M. Heller, Nicole D. Helton, William S. Helton, Robert R. Hoffman, Jerred Holt, Xiaogang Hu, Richard J. Jagacinski, Keith S. Jones, Astrid M. L. Kappers, Simon Kemp, Robert C. Kennedy, Robert S. Kennedy, Alan Kingstone, Ioana Koglbauer, Norman E. Lane, Robert D. Latzman, Cynthia Laurie-Rose, Patricia Lee, Richard Lowe, Valerie Lugo, Poornima Madhavan, Leonard S. Mark, Gerald Matthews, Jyoti Mishra, Stephen R. Mitroff, Tracy L. Mitzner, Alexander M. Morison, Taylor Murphy, Takamichi Nakamoto, John G. Neuhoff, Karl M. Newell, Tal Oron-Gilad, Raja Parasuraman, Tiffany A. Pempek, Robert W. Proctor, Katie A. Ragsdale, Anil K. Raj, Millard F. Reschke, Evan F. Risko, Matthew Rizzo, Wendy A. Rogers, Jesse Q. Sargent, Mark W. Scerbo, Natasha B. Schwartz, F. Jacob Seagull, Cory-Ann Smarr, L. James Smart, Kay Stanney, James Staszewski, Clayton L. Stephenson, Mary E. Stuart, Breanna E. Studenka, Joel Suss, Leedjia Svec, James L. Szalma, James Tanaka, James Thompson, Wouter M. Bergmann Tiest, Lauren A. Vassiliades, Michael A. Vidulich, Paul Ward, Joel S. Warm, David A. Washburn, Christopher D. Wickens, Scott J. Wood, David D. Woods, Motonori Yamaguchi, Lin Ye, Jeffrey M. Zacks
- Edited by Robert R. Hoffman, Peter A. Hancock, University of Central Florida, Mark W. Scerbo, Old Dominion University, Virginia, Raja Parasuraman, George Mason University, Virginia, James L. Szalma, University of Central Florida
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Handbook of Applied Perception Research
- Published online:
- 05 July 2015
- Print publication:
- 26 January 2015, pp xi-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
4 - Seeing red: Consequence of individual differences in color vision in callitrichid primates
- Edited by Lynne E. Miller
-
- Book:
- Eat or be Eaten
- Published online:
- 10 November 2009
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2002, pp 58-73
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Behavioral adaptations are mediated by the sensory systems. Animals locate food, identify mates, and avoid predators when they see, hear, smell, or otherwise sense them. It is easy to take for granted the fact that the sensory systems are directly and strongly influenced by selection pressures, but the identification of those pressures and the resulting adaptations sheds light on behavior we wish to understand. In this chapter the ways in which individual differences in one particular sensory adaptation, color vision, may influence foraging and predator detection in callitrichid primates are described. It is argued here that predation sensitive foraging may be accomplished in ways unique to callitrichids and other primate species that display this interesting sensory polymorphism.
Sensory specialization and compromise
Sensory systems often reflect a compromise resulting from different, sometimes opposing, selection pressures. A familiar and excellent example of this fact is the response of the visual system to selection pressures associated with diurnal versus nocturnal life. When light is plentiful, the eye can afford to specialize in the detection of detail in the visual world. In the absence of light, the eye must do what it can to capture and respond to every bit of illumination, even though such sensitivity sacrifices the visual detail enjoyed by diurnal species. Diurnal and nocturnal eyes are different in a host of ways, but most fundamentally they differ in the relative number of the two types of photoreceptors: rods and cones. Rods have a lower threshold to light than do cones and thus function when cones do not.