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.     

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.     

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.     

A study of impaired judgment of eye-gaze direction and related face-processing deficits in autism spectrum disorders

The purpose of this study was to examine whether individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) use the same cognitive strategies as typically developing individuals when processing eye-gaze direction. Subjects viewed pictures of whole faces, the eye region alone, and pairs of arrows presented for 40, 70, or 100 ms, and responded according to the direction the eyes were looking or the arrows pointing (left, right, or straight ahead). Experiment 1 demonstrated that typically developing adults (n = 41) were more accurate and showed shorter reaction times when judging direction of averted eye gaze in the context of the whole face than when only the eyes were visible (eye-region-alone condition). Furthermore, in the eye-region-alone condition participants were more accurate and faster at judging direct eye gaze than averted eye gaze. The same task was used in experiment 2 to compare the performance of a group of individuals with ASD (n = 24) with that of a group of IQ-matched typically developing individuals (n = 26). The performance of the control participants was identical to that observed in experiment 1. Individuals with ASD were able to judge eye-gaze direction accurately at short exposure duration; however, they failed to show the typical advantage for judging averted gaze in whole faces and the increased sensitivity to direct gaze in the eye-region-alone condition. The findings are discussed in terms of impairments to discrete gaze-processing and face-processing mechanisms, and the connectivity between these mechanisms.     

背景性质对7-10岁自闭症谱系障碍儿童面孔搜索与加工的作用

为了考察背景性质对ASD者搜索面孔的影响,设计两个眼动实验任务,要求14名7~10岁ASD儿童和20名同年龄正常儿童观看图片。实验一采用将面孔嵌入风景图片中引起语义不一致的刺激;实验二采用含有面孔的无意义背景乱序图片刺激。结果发现：（1）面孔与背景语义不一致并不能促进ASD儿童对面孔的搜索;（2）乱序背景对ASD儿童面孔搜索与加工没有产生干扰作用,但使正常儿童的搜索时间变长;（3）一旦觉察到面孔后,ASD儿童对面孔的注视时间少于正常儿童。表明正常儿童对面孔的搜索与加工受背景性质的影响,而ASD儿童不受背景性质的影响;一旦发现面孔,ASD儿童的注意维持较短,但面孔加工模式与正常儿童相似。     

Eye contact does not facilitate detection in children with autism

Eye contact is crucial in achieving social communication. Deviant patterns of eye contact behavior are found in individuals with autism, who suffer from severe social and communicative deficits. This study used a visual oddball paradigm to investigate whether children with high functioning autism have difficulty in detecting mutual gaze under experimental conditions. The results revealed that children with autism were no better at detecting direct gaze than at detecting averted gaze, which is unlike normal children. This suggests that whereas typically developing children have the ability to detect direct gaze, children with autism do not. This might result in altered eye-contact behavior, which hampers subsequent development of social and communicative skills.     

Attention, exposure duration, and gaze shifting in naming performance

Two experiments are reported in which the role of attribute exposure duration in naming performance was examined by tracking eye movements. Participants were presented with color-word Stroop stimuli and left- or right-pointing arrows on different sides of a computer screen. They named the color attribute and shifted their gaze to the arrow to manually indicate its direction. The color attribute (Experiment 1) or the complete color-word stimulus (Experiment 2) was removed from the screen 100 ms after stimulus onset. Compared with presentation until trial offset, removing the color attribute diminished Stroop interference, as well as facilitation effects in color naming latencies, whereas removing the complete stimulus diminished interference only. Attribute and stimulus removal reduced the latency of gaze shifting, which suggests decreased rather than increased attentional demand. These results provide evidence that limiting exposure duration contributes to attribute naming performance by diminishing the extent to which irrelevant attributes are processed, which reduces attentional demand.     

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.     

Spatial interference between gaze direction and gaze location: A study on the eye contact effect

Perceived gaze in faces is an important social cue that influences spatial orienting of attention. In three experiments, we examined whether the social relevance of gaze direction modulated spatial interference in response selection, using three different stimuli: faces, isolated eyes, and symbolic eyes (Experiments 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Each experiment employed a variant of the spatial Stroop paradigm in which face location and gaze direction were put into conflict. Results showed a reverse congruency effect between face location to the right or left of fixation and gaze direction only for stimuli with a social meaning to participants (Experiments 1 and 2). The opposite was observed for the nonsocial stimuli used in Experiment 3. Results are explained as facilitation in response to eye contact.     

Spatial interference between gaze direction and gaze location: a study on the eye contact effect

Perceived gaze in faces is an important social cue that influences spatial orienting of attention. In three experiments, we examined whether the social relevance of gaze direction modulated spatial interference in response selection, using three different stimuli: faces, isolated eyes, and symbolic eyes (Experiments 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Each experiment employed a variant of the spatial Stroop paradigm in which face location and gaze direction were put into conflict. Results showed a reverse congruency effect between face location to the right or left of fixation and gaze direction only for stimuli with a social meaning to participants (Experiments 1 and 2). The opposite was observed for the nonsocial stimuli used in Experiment 3. Results are explained as facilitation in response to eye contact.     

What gaze adds to arrows: Changes in attentional response to gaze versus arrows in childhood and adolescence

From early ages, gaze acts as a cue to infer the interests, behaviours, thoughts and emotions of social partners. Despite sharing attentional properties with other non-social directional stimuli, such as arrows, gaze produces unique effects. A spatial interference task revealed this dissociation. The direction of arrows was identified faster on congruent than on incongruent direction-location trials. Conversely, gaze produced a reversed congruency effect (RCE), with faster identifications on incongruent than congruent trials. To determine the emergence of these gaze-specific attentional mechanisms, 214 Spanish children (4–17 years) divided into 6 age groups, performed the aforementioned task across three experiments. Results showed stimulus-specific developmental trajectories. Whereas the standard effect of arrows was unaffected by age, gaze shifted from an arrow-like effect at age 4 to a gaze-specific RCE at age 12. The orienting mechanisms shared by gaze and arrows are already present in 4-year olds and, throughout childhood, gaze becomes a special social cue with additional attentional properties. Besides orienting attention to a direction, as arrows would do, gaze might orient attention towards a specific object that would be attentionally selected. Such additional components may not fully develop until adolescence. Understanding gaze-specific attentional mechanisms may be crucial for children with atypical socio-cognitive development.     

自闭症谱系障碍儿童在多重线索下习得词语的眼动研究

本文利用眼动追踪技术在基线、一致和矛盾3种实验条件下考察感知觉线索和社会性线索在自闭症谱系障碍儿童词语习得中的相对作用。行为数据结果表明, 此类儿童在矛盾条件下选择枯燥物体作为新异词语的所指对象, 这说明社会性线索较之于感知觉线索具有优势作用; 而他们在基线和一致条件下选择有趣物体作为新异词语的所指对象, 且一致条件的词语习得成绩优于基线条件, 这说明社会性线索较之于感知觉线索具有促进作用。眼动数据结果表明, 此类儿童在脸部注视模式和视线追随行为上与普通儿童存在差异。这说明, 虽然社会性线索在此类儿童与普通儿童的词语习得中具有相同的相对作用, 但他们获取社会性信息的方式与普通儿童存在差异。     

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.     

Look Here! The Development of Attentional Orienting to Symbolic Cues

Although much research has examined the development of orienting to social directional cues (e.g., eye gaze), little is known about the development of orienting to nonsocial directional cues, such as arrows. Arrow cues have been used in numerous studies as a means to study attentional orienting, but the development of children's understanding of such cues has not previously been examined. It remains unclear to what extent the social nature of a cue is important for directing attention; further, it is unknown whether symbolic understanding is necessary for young children to be cued by symbols such as arrows. The present investigation explored when and how arrows cue children's attention. Our results suggest that children younger than 5 years of age orient their attention using the perceptual properties of arrows, and it is not until sometime after 5 years of age that children use the conceptual meaning of arrows to orient their attention. Understanding of the directional meaning of arrows may develop through both exogenous and endogenous orienting; we discuss possible contributions of the compression-based and selection-based learning systems.     

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.     

场景的年龄特征会影响自闭症谱系障碍儿童的注视模式

为了探讨场景年龄特征对ASD儿童场景注视模式的影响,选取14名自闭症谱系障碍（ASD）儿童和19名与其智力年龄匹配的正常发育（TD）儿童为被试,在被试对儿童场景和成人场景图片进行自由观看的同时记录其眼动。结果发现,ASD儿童对全图、面部、眼部和嘴部的访问均显著少于TD儿童,对背景区域的访问显著大于TD儿童;ASD和TD儿童对面部和身体的访问时间比都显著大于前景与背景兴趣区;ASD儿童对儿童场景中面部、眼部和嘴部兴趣区的访问时间比大于成人场景,而TD儿童则相反;两组儿童都表现出对儿童场景中背景的偏好。结果表明,在场景注视中,ASD与TD儿童具有相似的社会性注意倾向,对社会性信息给予更多注视,但ASD儿童表现更弱;场景的年龄特征会影响ASD儿童与TD儿童的场景注视模式,相对于成人场景,ASD儿童更偏向于注视儿童场景中的面孔和背景。     

Mother–Stranger Comparisons of Social Attention in Jealousy Context and Attachment in HFASD and Typical Preschoolers

Affective bonding, social attention, and intersubjective capabilities are all conditions for jealousy, and are deficient in autism. Thus, examining jealousy and attachment may elucidate the socioemotional deficit in autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Jealousy was provoked in 30 high-functioning children with ASD (HFASD) and 30 typical children (ages 3–6 years) through two triadic social (storybook-reading) scenarios – mother-child-rival and stranger-child-rival. A control nonsocial scenario included mother/stranger-book. For both groups, higher jealousy expressions emerged for mother than stranger, and for social than nonsocial scenarios. Attachment security (using Attachment Q-Set) was lower for HFASD than typical groups, but attachment correlated negatively with jealous verbalizations for both groups and with jealous eye gazes for HFASD. Implications for understanding jealousy’s developmental complexity and the socioemotional deficit in ASD are discussed.     

Mutual eye gaze facilitates person categorization for typically developing children, but not for children with autism

Previous investigations of gaze processing in autism have demonstrated a pattern of intact and impaired performance. Although individuals with autism are capable of discriminating another’s gaze, they fail to interpret gaze direction, especially within the context of sociocommunicative (i.e., mentalistic) interactions. Extending this general line of inquiry, we explored whether typical children and children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) were influenced by gaze direction in a task that demanded a core person-related judgment—namely, sex categorization. The results revealed that typically developing school-aged children were faster to classify faces by sex when targets displayed direct rather than averted gaze, or when the eyes were closed. This was not the case, however, for children with ASD, whose responses were unaffected by gaze direction. These findings suggest that difficulties in gaze processing in autism extend beyond sociocommunicative inferences to include basic person-perception judgments.     

Simulating social interaction to address deficits of autistic spectrum disorder in children.

Autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) is diagnosed on the basis of impairment in reciprocal social interaction and language, and rigidity of behavior. This brief paper describes the development of an experimental intervention for preschool children newly diagnosed with ASD. The rationale for this intervention is the hypothesis that failure to attend to social cues in very early life, of itself, may bear a large share of responsibility for core social and communicative deficits. The intervention, therefore, uses eye-tracking to monitor and trigger rewards for attention to facial expression and direction of gaze.     

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.