title: Comparative Vision Science: Seeing Eye to Eye?
abstract: In the study of comparative cognition and perception, disparities in the diverse approaches that researchers take in studying behavior sometimes obscure the interpretation of a particular empirical finding. We describe an approach to the study of comparative cognition and perception which focuses on explaining the ways in which different biological systems solve the computational challenges that are posed by their natural environments. Within this investigative framework, the task of detecting correspondence between a three-dimensional object and its two-dimensional photographic representation falls outside the mainstream of most research in animal visual cognition and is of limited value for divulging the principles or mechanisms that underlie the visual abilities of animals. More productive pursuits seek to elucidate the principles and mechanisms of object recognition and categorization, and to illuminate how they contribute to the animal's survival in the visual world.
authors.affiliation: University of Iowa.
authors.forename: Fabian A
authors.initials: FA
authors.lastname: Soto
authors.forename: Edward A
authors.initials: EA
authors.lastname: Wasserman
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2007 Feb 20;17(4):336-40
references.pmid: 17275301
references.citation: Network. 2011;22(1-4):4-44
references.pmid: 22149669
references.citation: Annu Rev Neurosci. 2000;23:473-500
references.pmid: 10845072
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2010 Apr;117(2):349-81
references.pmid: 20438230
references.citation: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005 Feb;6(2):151-9
references.pmid: 15685220
references.citation: Network. 2003 Aug;14(3):391-412
references.pmid: 12938764
references.citation: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2009 Dec;9(4):343-64
references.pmid: 19897789
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2005 Dec;8(12):1643-6
references.pmid: 16306891
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2002 Jan;109(1):186-201
references.pmid: 11863037
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:167-92
references.pmid: 17705683
references.citation: Cognition. 1990 Nov;37(1-2):133-66
references.pmid: 2269005
references.citation: Behav Processes. 2006 Jun 1;72(3):265-72
references.pmid: 16616437
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2006 Feb;59(2):251-67
references.pmid: 16618633
references.citation: Brain Res Bull. 2002 Feb-Mar 1;57(3-4):513-28
references.pmid: 11923021
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2006 Nov;17(11):966-72
references.pmid: 17176429
references.citation: Vision Res. 1997 Dec;37(23):3385-98
references.pmid: 9425551
references.citation: Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2003 Apr;13(2):144-9
references.pmid: 12744966
references.citation: Annu Rev Neurosci. 2001;24:1193-216
references.pmid: 11520932
references.citation: Network. 2001 Aug;12(3):241-53
references.pmid: 11563528
references.citation: Appl Opt. 1987 Jan 1;26(1):157-70
references.pmid: 20454092
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002 Apr 29;357(1420):419-48
references.pmid: 12028784
references.citation: Behav Brain Res. 1999 Feb 1;98(2):183-91
references.pmid: 10683106
references.citation: Behav Processes. 1993 Dec;30(3):225-31
references.pmid: 24896946