Spatial cueing by social versus nonsocial directional signals

A cost-benefit analysis was used to investigate whether reflexive effects in a spatial cueing task are stronger when target location is cued by another person's gaze rather than arrows because the relative contribution of attentional shifts versus automatic priming is greater in the case of gaze cues. Across four experiments, nonpredictive arrows triggered rapid facilitatory, inhibition-less priming that peaked at 300-500ms SOA and then died away; across three experiments, nonpredictive gaze cues triggered facilitation-plus-costs at SOAs of 300-400ms or more, suggesting that gaze cues trigger stronger (and longer) attentional effects. At 200 ms SOA, gaze cues triggered facilitation-without-cost, consistent with the view that facilitatory effects accrue more rapidly due to earlier automatic priming, whereas costs are manifest slightly later, when attentional effects come online. There was some evidence that nonpredictive gaze cues trigger long-lasting congruency effects so long as observers maintain their preparedness to respond. Findings support the view that gaze is a unique symbolic directional cue.     

Orienting to counterpredictive gaze and arrow cues

In separate experiments, counterpredictive arrow, eye gaze, or abrupt-onset cues were used to test the hypothesis that individual differences in voluntary control influence involuntary orienting. In contrast with previous findings (Friesen, Ristic, & Kingstone, 2004), involuntary orienting effects were found for arrow cues.Furthermore, for both eye gaze and arrow cues, individual differences in voluntarycontrol were associatedwith involuntary orienting: Involuntary orienting effects were larger for participants who were more effective at using the cue to reorient attention, and also for participants who reported greater ability to control attention. Orienting to abrupt-onset cues was not correlated to individual differences in self-reported attentional control. The findings show that eye gaze and arrow cues instigate similar involuntary and voluntary effects and that involuntary orienting to symbolic cues is linked to individual differences in voluntary control.     

The neural correlates of social attention: automatic orienting to social and nonsocial cues

Previous evidence suggests that directional social cues (e.g., eye gaze) cause automatic shifts in attention toward gaze direction. It has been proposed that automatic attentional orienting driven by social cues (social orienting) involves a different neural network from automatic orienting driven by nonsocial cues. However, previous neuroimaging studies on social orienting have only compared gaze cues to symbolic cues, which typically engage top-down mechanisms. Therefore, we directly compared the neural activity involved in social orienting to that involved in purely automatic nonsocial orienting. Twenty participants performed a spatial cueing task consisting of social (gaze) cues and automatic nonsocial (peripheral squares) cues presented at short and long stimulus (cue-to-target) onset asynchronies (SOA), while undergoing fMRI. Behaviorally, a facilitation effect was found for both cue types at the short SOA, while an inhibitory effect (inhibition of return: IOR) was found only for nonsocial cues at the long SOA. Imaging results demonstrated that social and nonsocial cues recruited a largely overlapping fronto-parietal network. In addition, social cueing evoked greater activity in occipito-temporal regions at both SOAs, while nonsocial cueing recruited greater subcortical activity, but only for the long SOA (when IOR was found). A control experiment, including central arrow cues, confirmed that the occipito-temporal activity was at least in part due to the social nature of the cue and not simply to the location of presentation (central vs. peripheral). These results suggest an evolutionary trajectory for automatic orienting, from predominantly subcortical mechanisms for nonsocial orienting to predominantly cortical mechanisms for social orienting.     

Eye gaze versus arrows as spatial cues: two qualitatively different modes of attentional selection

This study aimed to evaluate the type of attentional selection (location- and/or object-based) triggered by two different types of central noninformative cues: eye gaze and arrows. Two rectangular objects were presented in the visual field, and subjects' attention was directed to the end of a rectangle via the observation of noninformative directional arrows or eye gaze. Similar experiments with peripheral cues have shown an object-based effect: faster target identification when the target is presented on the cued object as compared to the uncued object, even when the distance between target and cue was the same. The three reported experiments aimed to compare the location- and object-based attentional orienting observed with arrows and eye gaze, in order to dissociate the orienting mechanisms underlying the two types of orienting cues. Results showed similar cueing effects on the cued versus oppositely cued locations for the two cue types, replicating several studies with nonpredictive gaze and arrow cues. However, a pure object-based effect occurred only when an arrow cue was presented, whereas a pure location-based effect was only found for eye-gaze cues. It is suggested that attention is nonspecifically directed to nearby objects when a noninformative arrow is used as cue, whereas it is selectively directed to a specific cued location when noninformative eye gaze is used. This may be mediated by theory of mind mechanisms.     

Investigating hemispheric lateralization of reflexive attention to gaze and arrow cues

Recent studies have demonstrated that central cues, such as eyes and arrows, reflexively trigger attentional shifts. However, it is not clear whether the attentional mechanisms induced by these two cues are similar or rather differ in some important way. We investigated hemispheric lateralization of the orienting effects induced by the two cue types in a group of 48 healthy participants comparing arrows and eye gaze as central non-predictive cues in a discrimination task, in which a target stimulus was briefly presented in one of two peripheral positions (left or right of fixation). As predicted by neuropsychological data, reflexive orienting to gaze cues was only observed when the target was presented in the left visual field, whereas reflexive orienting to arrow cues occurred for targets presented in both left and right visual fields.     

Developmental changes in the control of saccadic eye movements in response to directional eye gaze and arrows

We investigated developmental differences in oculomotor control between 10-year-old children and adults using a central interference task. In this task, the colour of a fixation point instructed participants to saccade either to the left or to the right. These saccade directions were either congruent or incongruent with two types of distractor cue: either the direction of eye gaze of a centrally presented schematic face, or the direction of arrows. Children had greater difficulties inhibiting the distractor cues than did adults, which revealed itself in longer saccade latencies for saccades that were incongruent with the distractor cues as well as more errors on these incongruent trials than on congruent trials. Counter to our prediction, in terms of saccade latencies, both children and adults had greater difficulties inhibiting the arrow than the eye gaze distractors.     

Developmental changes in the control of saccadic eye movements in response to directional eye gaze and arrows

We investigated developmental differences in oculomotor control between 10-year-old children and adults using a central interference task. In this task, the colour of a fixation point instructed participants to saccade either to the left or to the right. These saccade directions were either congruent or incongruent with two types of distractor cue: either the direction of eye gaze of a centrally presented schematic face, or the direction of arrows. Children had greater difficulties inhibiting the distractor cues than did adults, which revealed itself in longer saccade latencies for saccades that were incongruent with the distractor cues as well as more errors on these incongruent trials than on congruent trials. Counter to our prediction, in terms of saccade latencies, both children and adults had greater difficulties inhibiting the arrow than the eye gaze distractors.     

Separate mechanisms recruited by exogenous and endogenous spatial cues: evidence from a spatial Stroop paradigm

The present experiments tested whether endogenous and exogenous cues produce separate effects on target processing. In Experiment 1, participants discriminated whether an arrow presented left or right of fixation pointed to the left or right. For 1 group, the arrow was preceded by a peripheral noninformative cue. For the other group, the arrow was preceded by a central, symbolic, informative cue. The 2 types of cues modulated the spatial Stroop effect in opposite ways, with endogenous cues producing larger spatial Stroop effects for valid trials and exogenous cues producing smaller spatial Stroop effects for valid trials. In Experiments 2A and 2B, the influence of peripheral noninformative and peripheral informative cues on the spatial Stroop effect was directly compared. The spatial Stroop effect was smaller for valid than for invalid trials for both types of cues. These results point to a distinction between the influence of central and peripheral attentional cues on performance and are not consistent with a unitary view of endogenous and exogenous attention.     

Look away! Eyes and arrows engage oculomotor responses automatically

The present study investigates how people’s voluntary saccades are influenced by where another person is looking, even when this is counterpredictive of the intended saccade direction. The color of a fixation point instructed participants to make saccades either to the left or right. These saccade directions were either congruent or incongruent with the eye gaze of a centrally presented schematic face. Participants were asked to ignore the eyes, which were congruent only 20% of the time. At short gaze—fixation-cue stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs; 0 and 100 msec), participants made more directional errors on incongruent than on congruent trials. At a longer SOA (900 msec), the pattern tended to reverse. We demonstrate that a perceived eye gaze results in an automatic saccade following the gaze and that the gaze cue cannot be ignored, even when attending to it is detrimental to the task. Similar results were found for centrally presented arrow cues, suggesting that this interference is not unique to gazes.     

Feature integration is not the whole story of the sequence effects of symbolic cueing

ABSTRACT

Sequential modulations in symbolic cueing tasks have been attributed to complete versus partial repetition/alternation of stimulus features between consecutive trials. This feature-integration hypothesis is questioned by recent findings and further investigated in the present study. In the first two experiments, when the cueing axes switched between trials, only complete alternation of cue directions and target locations existed. Nevertheless, significant sequence effects were still found in this condition, which did not support the feature-integration hypothesis. Furthermore, although sequence effects were still significant when stimulus identities were manipulated in Experiment 3, it was abolished when different cue categories (gaze and arrow) were presented as cues in Experiment 4. The findings suggest that the integration of stimulus features is not the only source of the sequential effect and some higher level cognitive mechanisms, possibly as described in the task-file or task organization hypotheses, are involved in the sequential modulations of symbolic cueing.     

Automatic and voluntary control of attention in young and older adults

Young and older adults searched for a target character in a 3-item display. On each trial, both a symbolic cue (arrow at fixation) and a spatial cue (abrupt onset of one item) could indicate the target's position. Participants were told to use the central arrow cue on all trials because it had 75% validity. The onset cue also had 75% validity for half the participants and 25% validity for the other half. Both age groups showed about the same cost and benefit effects for the central arrow cues, but the abrupt onsets had much larger cuing effects for older adults. Young adults were able to suppress at least partially an automatic attentional response to an abrupt onset item when the arrow cue preceded the onset and had a higher validity than the onset cue. Older adults appeared to be less able to inhibit their responses to abrupt onsets and to disengage their attention from invalid onset cues than were the young adults.     

Eye gaze is not unique: automatic orienting in response to uninformative arrows

Recent studies (Driver et al., 1999; Friesen & Kingstone, 1998; Langton & Bruce, 1999) have argued that the perception of eye gaze may be unique, as compared with other symbolic cues (e.g., arrows), in being able to automatically trigger attentional orienting. In Experiment 1, 17 participants took part in a visuospatial orienting task to investigate whether arrow cues might also trigger automatic orienting. Two arrow cues were presented for 75 msec to the left and right of a fixation asterisk. After an interval of either 25 or 225 msec, the letter O or X appeared. After both time intervals, mean response times were reliably faster when the arrows pointed toward, rather than away from, the location of the target letter. This occurred despite the fact that the participants were informed that the arrows did not predict where the target would appear. In Experiment 2, the same pattern of data was recorded when several adjustments had been made in an attempt to rule out alternative explanations for the cuing effects. Overall, the findings suggest that the eye gaze is not unique in automatically triggering orienting.     

Attention orienting by eye gaze and arrows reveals flexibility to environmental changes

This study aimed to evaluate the difference in non-predictive cues between gaze and arrows in attention orienting. Attention orienting was investigated with gaze or arrows as separate cues in a simple condition (i.e., block design) in Experiment 1 and in an unpredictable condition (i.e., randomized design) in Experiment 2. Two kinds of sound (voice and tone) stimuli were used as targets. Results showed that gaze and arrow cues induced enhanced attention orienting to a voice versus tone target in the block condition. However, in the randomized condition, enhanced attention orienting to a voice versus tone target was found in gaze but not arrow cues. The congruency of the meaning between a social cue (i.e., gaze) and a social target (i.e., voice) was clear in the randomized but not blocked design, because social gaze and non-social arrow cues were implemented in the same block. Thus, attention orienting might be mediated by the associated relationship of cue–target in a randomized condition, as an enhanced orienting effect was found when the associated relationship of cue–target was strong (i.e., social cue and target). The present study suggests that the difference in attention orienting between gaze and arrows is apparent in a randomized design (the unpredictable condition), and people employ a flexibly strategy of orienting to better respond to environmental changes.     

The effect of gaze on gaze direction while looking at art

In highly controlled cuing experiments, conspecific gaze direction has powerful effects on an observer’s attention. We explored the generality of this effect by using paintings in which the gaze direction of a key character had been carefully manipulated. Our observers looked at these paintings in one of three instructional states (neutral, social, or spatial) while we monitored their eye movements. Overt orienting was much less influenced by the critical gaze direction than what the cuing literature might suggest: An analysis of the direction of saccades following the first fixation of the critical gaze showed that observers were weakly biased to orient in the direction of the gaze. Over longer periods of viewing, however, this effect disappeared for all but the social condition. This restriction of gaze as an attentional cue to a social context is consistent with the idea that the evolution of gaze direction detection is rooted in social communication. The picture stimuli from this experiment can be downloaded from the Psychonomic Society’s Archive of Norms, Stimuli, and Data, www.psychonomic.org/archive.     

Gaze and arrow distractors influence saccade trajectories similarly

Perceiving someone's averted eye-gaze is thought to result in an automatic shift of attention and in the preparation of an oculomotor response in the direction of perceived gaze. Although gaze cues have been regarded as being special in this respect, recent studies have found evidence for automatic attention shifts with nonsocial stimuli, such as arrow cues. Here, we directly compared the effects of social and nonsocial cues on eye movement preparation by examining the modulation of saccade trajectories made in the presence of eye-gaze, arrows, or peripheral distractors. At a short stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between the distractor and the target, saccades deviated towards the direction of centrally presented arrow distractors, but away from the peripheral distractors. No significant trajectory deviations were found for gaze distractors. At the longer SOA, saccades deviated away from the direction of the distractor for all three distractor types, but deviations were smaller for the centrally presented gaze and arrow distractors. These effects were independent of whether line-drawings or photos of faces were used and could not be explained by differences in the spatial properties of the peripheral distractor. The results suggest that all three types of distractors (gaze, arrow, peripheral) can induce the automatic programming of an eye movement. Moreover, the findings suggest that gaze and arrow distractors affect oculomotor preparation similarly, whereas peripheral distractors, which are classically regarded as eliciting an automatic shift of attention and an oculomotor response, induce a stronger and faster acting influence on response preparation and the corresponding inhibition of that response.     

Is chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) spatial attention reflexively triggered by gaze cue?

Humans show a reflexive shift in spatial attention triggered by gaze cues. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) have an excellent ability to follow another's gaze, but they exhibit a limited capacity to engage in triadic interactions based on joint attention, suggesting the possibility of contributions of the different mechanisms underlying joint attention between humans and chimpanzees. The present study thus examined how the chimpanzee's visual spatial attention is triggered by gaze cues. Two chimpanzees showed no clear signs of attention shift triggered by various kinds of nonfacial and facial stimuli with averted gaze under the letter-discrimination tasks but showed significant cueing effects when the head-turning cue was presented in a quasi-dynamic manner. These cueing effects were, however, affected by the predictability of the gaze cue: Highly predictive gaze cues caused stronger cueing effects than less predictive cues. Thus, these results suggest that the shift in spatial attention caused by gaze cues does occur in chimpanzees, but, in contrast to humans, vulnerability against the cue predictability suggests that the voluntary mechanism contributes more dominantly than the reflexive mechanism to this attention shift.     

眼睛注视线索提示效应: 内源性注意还是外源性注意?

采用改进的Posner视-空间线索提示范式, 对眼睛注视线索提示效应(eyes gaze cueing effect)的加工机制进行了探讨。实验一考察注视提示线索对空间Stroop效应的影响; 实验二考察注视提示线索对特征抽取和特征整合的影响。实验结果显示: 注视线索提示有效时的空间Stroop效应显著大于提示无效的情景; 在单一特征搜索与特征联合搜索任务中, 注视线索提示效应无差别。这说明, 注视线索通过在头脑里形成空间方位表征诱导注意转移; 注视线索通过影响特征抽取、而非特征整合阶段, 对客体加工产生易化。本研究支持注视线索提示效应属于内源性注意的观点。     

Attentional shift by eye gaze requires joint attention: Eye gaze cues are unique to shift attention1

Researchers have demonstrated that attentional shift triggered by gaze direction is reflexive. However, here we show that attentional shift by gaze direction was not always reflexive, but could be modulated by another's perspective. In Experiment 1, a schematic face's line of sight to a peripheral target was obstructed by a vertical barrier located between the face and the target under two conditions. However, the line of sight of the face was clear under another two conditions, in which the barrier was located behind the line of sight by utilizing a depth cue. The gaze cue shifted attention only when the line of sight was not blocked (i.e. joint attention was attained). The arrow cue did not shift attention regardless of the obstruction conditions in Experiment 2. These results suggest that attentional shift by gaze cues, but not arrow cues, involve a higher social cognitive process such as interpretation of the gaze.     

Testing whether gaze cues and arrow cues produce reflexive or volitional shifts of attention

It has been suggested that two types of uninformative central cues produce reflexive orienting: gaze and arrow cues. Using the criterion that voluntary shifts of attention facilitate both response speed and perceptual accuracy, whereas reflexive shifts of attention facilitate only response speed (Prinzmetal, McCool, & Park, 2005), we tested whether these cues produce reflexive or volitional shifts of attention. A cued letter discrimination task was used with both gaze (Experiments 1A and 1B) and arrow (Experiments 2A and 2B) cues, in which participants responded to the identity of the target letter. In the response time (respond speed) tasks, participants were asked to respond as quickly as possible to the target; in the accuracy (perceptual quality) tasks, participants were asked to respond as accurately as possible. For both cue types, compatible cues were found to facilitate response speed but not perceptual accuracy, indicating that both gaze and arrow cues generate reflexive shifts in attention.     

Directed forgetting and directed remembering in visual working memory

A defining characteristic of visual working memory is its limited capacity. This means that it is crucial to maintain only the most relevant information in visual working memory. However, empirical research is mixed as to whether it is possible to selectively maintain a subset of the information previously encoded into visual working memory. Here we examined the ability of participants to use cues to either forget or remember a subset of the information already stored in visual working memory. In Experiment 1, participants were cued to either forget or remember 1 of 2 groups of colored squares during a change-detection task. We found that both types of cues aided performance in the visual working memory task but that observers benefited more from a cue to remember than a cue to forget a subset of the objects. In Experiment 2, we show that the previous findings, which indicated that directed-forgetting cues are ineffective, were likely due to the presence of invalid cues that appeared to cause observers to disregard such cues as unreliable. In Experiment 3, we recorded event-related potentials and show that an electrophysiological index of focused maintenance is elicited by cues that indicate which subset of information in visual working memory needs to be remembered, ruling out alternative explanations of the behavioral effects of retention-interval cues. The present findings demonstrate that observers can focus maintenance mechanisms on specific objects in visual working memory based on cues indicating future task relevance. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).