Assessing the impact of verbal and visuospatial working memory load on eye-gaze cueing

Observers tend to respond more quickly to peripheral stimuli that are being gazed at by a centrally presented face, than to stimuli that are not being gazed at. While this gaze-cueing effect was initially seen as reflexive, there have also been some indications that top-down control processes may be involved. Therefore, the present investigation employed a dual-task paradigm to attempt to disrupt the putative control processes involved in gaze cueing. Two experiments examined the impact of working memory load on gaze cueing. In Experiment 1, participants were required to hold a set of digits in working memory during each gaze trial. In Experiment 2, the gaze task was combined with an auditory task that required the manipulation and maintenance of visuospatial information. Gaze cueing effects were observed, but they were not modulated by dual-task load in either experiment. These results are consistent with traditional accounts of gaze cueing as a highly reflexive process.     

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.     

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.     

The role of modality: Auditory and visual distractors in Stroop interference

As a commonly used measure of selective attention, it is important to understand the factors contributing to interference in the Stroop task. The current research examined distracting stimuli in the auditory and visual modalities to determine whether the use of auditory distractors would create additional interference, beyond what is typically observed in the print-based Stroop task. Research by Cowan and Barron supported the additive effects of auditory and visual distractors; however, there is only one empirical demonstration of this finding to date. Using different versions of the Stroop colour-naming task, behavioural analyses of reaction times (RT) were conducted, along with distributional RT analyses. The results indicated that a combination of visual and auditory distraction did not lead to a larger interference effect than visually based distraction alone. These findings suggest that methodological issues may have influenced the prior finding of additive effects of the two modalities, and are discussed in relation to the word production architecture account of Stroop effects.     

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。     

Age-related decline in the reflexive component of overt gaze following

Previous research has found age-related declines in social perception tasks as well as the ability to engage in joint attention and orienting covert attention (i.e., absence of eye movements) in response to an eye gaze cue. We used an overt gaze following task to explore age differences in overt gaze following whilst people searched for a target. Participants were faster to detect targets appearing at the looked-at location, and although the gaze cue biased the direction in which saccades were executed, no age differences were found in overt gaze following. There were, however, age effects relating to involuntary eye movements. In the younger adults, anticipatory saccades were biased in the direction of the gaze cue, but this bias was not observed in the older group. Moreover, in the younger adults, saccades that followed the gaze were initiated more rapidly, illustrating the reflexive nature of gaze following. No such difference was observed in the older adults. Importantly, our results showed that whilst the general levels of gaze following were age invariant, there were age-related differences in the reflexive components of overt gaze following.     

Arrows don’t look at you: Qualitatively different attentional mechanisms triggered by gaze and arrows

Eye gaze conveys rich information concerning the states of mind of others, playing a critical role in social interactions, signaling internal states, and guiding others’ attention. On the basis of its social significance, some researchers have proposed that eye gaze may represent a unique attentional stimulus. However, contrary to this notion, the majority of the literature has shown indistinguishable attentional effects when eye gaze and arrows have been used as cues. Taking a different approach, in this study we aimed at finding qualitative attentional differences between gazes and arrows when they were used as targets instead of as cues. We used a spatial Stroop task, in which participants were required to identify the direction of eyes or arrows presented to the left or the right of a fixation point. The results showed that the two types of stimuli led to opposite spatial interference effects, with arrows producing faster reaction times when the stimulus direction was congruent with the stimulus position (a typical spatial Stroop effect), and eye gaze producing faster reaction times when it was incongruent (a “reversed” spatial Stroop effect). This reversed Stroop is interpreted as an eye-contact effect, therefore revealing the unique nature of eyes as special social-attention stimuli.     

The role of stimulus predictability in the allocation of attentional resources: an eye-tracking study

By allocating less attention to predictable events we are able to focus on novel, unpredictable and unexpected events that require more extensive processing. This strategy should result in improved performance by optimizing the use of brain’s limited resources. Participants’ task was to look at two types of stimuli presented simultaneously at the opposite sides of a computer screen: “static” stimuli, i.e. emotionally neutral photographs; and “dynamic” stimuli, i.e. video clips presenting a moving dot. The dot moved along a predictable, semi-predictable or random trajectory. This was followed by a memory test of the static stimuli. Participants spent more time looking at the dynamic stimuli when its trajectory was less predictable. Additionally, participants who readily adjusted their dwell time allocation to the dot trajectory performed better in the memory test, as demonstrated by a positive correlation between memory test sensitivity and the rate of eye movement patterns adjustment to stimulus predictability. This suggests that people adjust gaze duration to stimulus predictability and that doing so optimizes attentional resource allocation and improves performance. However, study design did not allow to distinguish between spatial and temporal predictability, so it is impossible to estimate the impact of each type of predictability specifically.     

The effect of novel distractors on performance in focused attention tasks: A cognitive-psychophysiological approach

In the present study, we examined whether or not novel stimuli affect performance in a focused attention task. Participants responded to a central target while an irrelevant distractor in the visual display was occasionally changed. In Experiment 1, both target and distractor were presented centrally within the focus of attention. In Experiment 2, a central target was presented along with an irrelevant distractor at a peripheral location, outside the focus of attention. Novel distractors were associated with longer latencies and enhanced orienting responses (as measured by skin conductance responses) only when presented at an attended location. In contrast, as is demonstrated in Experiment 3, the same peripheral novel distractors interfered with task performance when they possessed task-relevant information. These results indicate that there is a fundamental difference between novel stimuli and task-relevant stimuli. Whereas the former exert influence only within the focus of attention, the latter affect performance even when positioned in an unattended location. Our findings have important implications for the operation of visual attention.     

Nonconcurrently presented auditory tones reduce distraction

Recent research has demonstrated that task-irrelevant stimuli presented simultaneously with a target-distractor stimulus reduce distraction and improve selective attention. In studies examining this reduced interference effect, visual selective attention tasks and concurrently presented task-irrelevant stimuli are used. We report first evidence for a similar effect in the auditory domain and with nonconcurrent stimuli (i.e., the task-irrelevant stimuli are presented before the target). The effect of nonconcurrently presented auditory tones on an auditory Stroop task developed by Leboe and Mondor (Psychological Research, 71, 568--575, 2007) was investigated. Stroop interference was reduced when task-irrelevant tones were presented before the Stroop stimulus. We conclude that task-irrelevant stimuli can improve selective attention not only when presented concurrently, but also when presented before the selective attention task. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that interference reduction is due to perceptual dilution caused by task-irrelevant stimuli.     

Verbal coding and the elimination of Stroop interference in a matching task

Translational models of the Stroop effect (Virzi & Egeth, 1985) predict that Stroop interference can be eliminated if subjects can be induced to process target colors using a coding system separate from the coding system used to process distractors. This hypothesis was tested in two experiments. In the first experiment, we attempted to eliminate the need for subjects to translate target colors to verbal codes when responding to Stroop stimuli. Before responding to verbal incongruent color word distractors, subjects practiced matching colors to irregular shapes. It was expected that subjects would use nonverbal codes to mediate responding in this task. After practice, subjects continued the matching task in the presence of incongruent color words. Stroop interference persisted, contrary to predictions. Because subjects reported adopting verbal strategies to perform the matching task, Experiment 2 was designed to control the verbal coding strategies that subjects employed. Before responding to Stroop distractor stimuli, subjects in the nonsense name group practiced using nonsense names to mediate the matching of shapes to colors; subjects in the actual name group used actual color names to mediate performance in the matching task. When incongruent color word distractors were introduced, Stroop interference was eliminated for subjects in the nonsense name group, but persisted for subjects in the actual name group. The results are interpreted as consistent with an outcome conflict (Navon & Miller, 1987) or a modified translational model of the Stroop effect.     

The interaction between stop signal inhibition and distractor interference in the flanker and Stroop task

In the present study, two experiments were conducted to investigate the interaction between the behavioral inhibition, measured by the stop signal task, and distractor interference, measured by the flanker task and the Stroop task. In the first experiment, the stop signal task was combined with a flanker task. Analysis revealed that participants responded faster when the distractors were congruent to the target. Also, the data suggest that it is more difficult to suppress a reaction when the distractors were incongruent. Whether the incongruent distractor was part of the response set (i.e. the distractor could also be a target) or not, had no influence on stopping reactions. In the second experiment, the stop signal task was combined with a manual version of the Stroop task and the degree of compatibility was varied. Even though in the second experiment of the present study interference control is differently operationalized, similar results as in the first experiment were found, indicating that inhibition of motor responses is influenced by the presentation of distracting information that is not part of the response set.     

Pupillary Stroop effects

We recorded the pupil diameters of participants performing the words’ color-naming Stroop task (i.e., naming the color of a word that names a color). Non-color words were used as baseline to firmly establish the effects of semantic relatedness induced by color word distractors. We replicated the classic Stroop effects of color congruency and color incongruency with pupillary diameter recordings: relative to non-color words, pupil diameters increased for color distractors that differed from color responses, while they reduced for color distractors that were identical to color responses. Analyses of the time courses of pupil responses revealed further differences between color-congruent and color-incongruent distractors, with the latter inducing a steep increase of pupil size and the former a relatively lower increase. Consistent with previous findings that have demonstrated that pupil size increases as task demands rise, the present results indicate that pupillometry is a robust measure of Stroop interference, and it represents a valuable addition to the cognitive scientist’s toolbox.     

Task-irrelevant direct gaze facilitates visual search for deviant facial expression

The detection of emotional expression is important particularly when the expression is directed towards the viewer. Therefore, we conjectured that the efficiency in visual search for deviant emotional expression is modulated by gaze direction, which is one of the primary clues for encoding the focus of social attention. To examine this hypothesis, two visual search tasks were conducted. In Emotional Face Search, the participants were required to detect an emotional expression amongst distractor faces with neutral expression; in Neutral Face Search they were required to detect a neutral target among emotional distractors. The results revealed that target detection was accelerated when the target face had direct gaze compared to averted gaze for fearful, angry, and neutral targets, but no effect of distractor gaze direction was observed. An additional experiment including multiple display sizes has shown a shallower search slope in search for a target face with direct gaze than that with averted gaze, indicating that the advantage of a target face with direct gaze is attributable to efficient orientation of attention towards target faces. These results indicate that direct gaze facilitates detection of target face in visual scenery even when gaze discrimination is not the primary task at hand.     

The role of the oculomotor system in covert social attention

Observing a change in gaze direction triggers a reflexive shift of attention and appears to engage the eye-movement system. However, the functional relationship between social attention and this oculomotor activation is unclear. One extremely influential hypothesis is that the preparation of a saccadic eye movement is necessary and sufficient for a covert, reflexive shift of attention (the premotor theory of attention; Rizzolatti et al., 1994). Surprisingly, this theory has not been directly tested with respect to reflexive gaze cueing. In order to address this issue, gaze cueing, peripheral cueing, and arrow cueing were examined under conditions in which some stimuli appeared at locations that could not become the goal of a saccadic eye movement. It was observed that peripheral cues failed to elicit reflexive attentional orienting when targets appeared beyond the range of eye movements. Similarly, nonpredictive arrow cues were ineffective when targets could not become the goal of a saccade. In contrast, significant gaze-cueing effects were still observed when targets were beyond the range of eye movements. These data demonstrate that the mechanisms involved in gaze cueing are dissociated from those involved in exogenous orienting to peripheral or arrow cues. Furthermore, the findings suggest that, unlike peripheral cueing and reflexive arrow cueing, gaze cueing is independent of oculomotor control. We conclude that the premotor theory does not offer a compelling explanation for gaze cueing.     

Slow Motor Responses to Visual Stimuli of Low Salience in Autism

ABSTRACT

The authors studied 2 tasks that placed differing demands on detecting relevant visual information and generating appropriate gaze shifts in adults and children with and without autism. In Experiment 1, participants fixated a cross and needed to make large gaze shifts, but researchers provided explicit instructions about shifting. Children with autism were indistinguishable from comparison groups in this top-down task. In Experiment 2 (bottom-up), a fixation cross remained or was removed prior to the presentation of a peripheral target of low visual salience. In this gap–effect experiment, children with autism showed lengthened reaction times overall but no specific deficit in overlap trials. The results show evidence of a general deficit in manual responses to visual stimuli of low salience and no evidence of a deficit in top-down attention shifting. Older children with autism appeared able to generate appropriate motor responses, but stimulus-driven visual attention seemed impaired.     

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.     

How does reward compete with goal-directed and stimulus-driven shifts of attention?

In order to behave adaptively, attention can be directed in space either voluntarily (i.e. endogenously) according to strategic goals, or involuntarily (i.e. exogenously) through reflexive capture by salient or novel events. The emotional or motivational values of stimuli can also influence attentional orienting. However, little is known about how reward-related effects compete or interact with endogenous and exogenous attention mechanisms. Here we designed a visual search paradigm in which goal-driven and stimulus-driven shifts of attention were manipulated by classic spatial cueing procedures, while an irrelevant, but previously rewarded stimulus also appeared as a distractor and hence competed with both types of spatial attention during search. Our results demonstrated that stimuli previously associated with a high monetary reward received higher attentional priority in the subsequent visual search task, even though these stimuli and reward were no longer task-relevant, mitigating the attentional orienting induced by both endogenous and exogenous cues.     

ERPs reveal similar effects of social gaze orienting and voluntary attention, and distinguish each from reflexive attention

Spatial attention can be reflexively captured by a physically salient stimulus, effortfully directed toward a relevant location, or involuntarily oriented in the direction of another person's gaze (i.e., social gaze orienting). Here, we used event-related potentials to compare the effects of these three types of orienting on multiple stages of subsequent target processing. Although gaze orienting has been associated more strongly with reflexive capture than with voluntary attention, the present data provide new evidence that the neural effects of social gaze orienting are markedly different from the effects of reflexive attentional capture by physically salient stimuli. Specifically, despite their similar behavioral effects, social gaze orienting and reflexive capture produce different effects on both early sensory processing (~120 ms; P1/N1 components) and later, higher-order processing (~300 ms; P3 component). In contrast, the effects of social gaze orienting were highly similar to those of voluntary orienting at these stages of target processing.     

Mental-state attribution drives rapid, reflexive gaze following

When presented with a face stimulus whose gaze is diverted, observers’ attention shifts to locations fixated by the face. Such “gaze following” has been characterized by some previous studies as a consequence of sophisticated theory of mind processes, but by others (particularly those employing the “gaze-cuing” paradigm) as an involuntary response that is triggered directly and reflexively by the physical features of a face. To address this apparent contradiction, we modified the gaze-cuing paradigm using a deception procedure to convince observers that prerecorded videos of an experimenter making head turns and wearing mirrored goggles were a “live” video link to an adjacent room. In two experiments, reflexive gaze following was found when observers believed that the model was wearing transparent goggles and could see, but it was significantly reduced when they believed that the experimenter wore opaque goggles and could not see. These results indicate that the attribution of the mental state “seeing” to a face plays a role in controlling even reflexive gaze following.