You must see the point: automatic processing of cues to the direction of social attention

Four experiments explored the processing of pointing gestures comprising hand and combined head and gaze cues to direction. The cross-modal interference effect exerted by pointing hand gestures on the processing of spoken directional words, first noted by S. R. H. Langton, C. O'Malley, and V. Bruce (1996), was found to be moderated by the orientation of the gesturer's head-gaze (Experiment 1). Hand and head cues also produced bidirectional interference effects in a within-modalities version of the task (Experiment 2). These findings suggest that both head-gaze and hand cues to direction are processed automatically and in parallel up to a stage in processing where a directional decision is computed. In support of this model, head-gaze cues produced no influence on nondirectional decisions to social emblematic gestures in Experiment 3 but exerted significant interference effects on directional responses to arrows in Experiment 4. It is suggested that the automatic analysis of head, gaze, and pointing gestures occurs because these directional signals are processed as cues to the direction of another individual's social attention.     

Processing head fakes in basketball: Are there ironic effects of instructions on the head-fake effect in basketball?

Instructions in sports are used to improve athletes’ performance. However, instructions can also impair performance if they direct athletes’ attention to a to-be-avoided behavior which paradoxically provokes exactly that behavior (ironic effect). The present study investigates the impact of different instructions on the head-fake effect in basketball. Specifically, we asked here if deliberate attempts to ignore the deceptive cues gaze direction and head orientation increase the impact of that information and thus, paradoxically increase the head-fake effect. We found that the detrimental impact of spatially incongruent gaze direction and head orientation was essentially independent of whether participants were, or were not, instructed to deliberately ignore the task-irrelevant information. Hence, deceptive actions exert their impact independent of the perceivers’ attempts to ignore deceptive cues. We thus conclude that the deceptive cues gaze direction and head orientation are per se hyper-accessible or over-salient and its processing cannot be controlled with any amount of mental capacity (and even not with the non-ironic instruction). However, as both ignore instructions produce general processing costs (i.e., slower reactions) coaches should solely instruct athletes’ to focus attention on the processing of the pass direction.     

Gaze cueing as a function of perceived gaze direction

Previous studies have found that attention is automatically oriented in the direction of other people's gaze. This study directly investigated whether the perceiving gaze direction modulates the orienting of observers' attention. Gaze perception was manipulated by changing the face context (head orientation) of the gaze cue: the perceived gaze angle was increased (or decreased) when the head and gaze are congruent (or incongruent), while the local‐feature information of the eye region was preserved for all stimuli. The results showed that gaze‐cueing effects were enhanced when the perceived gaze direction was averted more toward left or right, and reduced when the perceived gaze direction was closer to direct gaze. The results suggest that gaze‐cueing effects are based on mechanisms specialized for gaze perception, and the magnitude of gaze‐cueing effects was probably a function of the perceived gaze direction.     

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.     

Effects of peripheral eccentricity and head orientation on gaze discrimination

Visual search tasks support a special role for direct gaze in human cognition, while classic gaze judgement tasks suggest the congruency between head orientation and gaze direction plays a central role in gaze perception. Moreover, whether gaze direction can be accurately discriminated in the periphery using covert attention is unknown. In the present study, individual faces in frontal and in deviated head orientations with a direct or an averted gaze were flashed for 150 ms across the visual field; participants focused on a centred fixation while judging the gaze direction. Gaze discrimination speed and accuracy varied with head orientation and eccentricity. The limit of accurate gaze discrimination was less than ±6° eccentricity. Response times suggested a processing facilitation for direct gaze in fovea, irrespective of head orientation, however, by ±3° eccentricity, head orientation started biasing gaze judgements, and this bias increased with eccentricity. Results also suggested a special processing of frontal heads with direct gaze in central vision, rather than a general congruency effect between eye and head cues. Thus, while both head and eye cues contribute to gaze discrimination, their role differs with eccentricity.     

Automatic attentional orienting to other people’s gaze in schizophrenia

Explicit tests of social cognition have revealed pervasive deficits in schizophrenia. Less is known of automatic social cognition in schizophrenia. We used a spatial orienting task to investigate automatic shifts of attention cued by another person’s eye gaze in 29 patients and 28 controls. Central photographic images of a face with eyes shifted left or right, or looking straight ahead, preceded targets that appeared left or right of the cue. To examine automatic effects, cue direction was non-predictive of target location. Cue–target intervals were 100, 300, and 800?ms. In non-social control trials, arrows replaced eye-gaze cues. Both groups showed automatic attentional orienting indexed by faster reaction times (RTs) when arrows were congruent with target location across all cue–target intervals. Similar congruency effects were seen for eye-shift cues at 300 and 800?ms intervals, but patients showed significantly larger congruency effects at 800?ms, which were driven by delayed responses to incongruent target locations. At short 100-ms cue–target intervals, neither group showed faster RTs for congruent than for incongruent eye-shift cues, but patients were significantly slower to detect targets after direct-gaze cues. These findings conflict with previous studies using schematic line drawings of eye-shifts that have found automatic attentional orienting to be reduced in schizophrenia. Instead, our data indicate that patients display abnormalities in responding to gaze direction at various stages of gaze processing—reflected by a stronger preferential capture of attention by another person’s direct eye contact at initial stages of gaze processing and difficulties disengaging from a gazed-at location once shared attention is established.     

头部朝向在社会性注意转移中的作用

注视指向是非常重要的社会性注意线索,但是在日常情境中,注视指向往往伴随着头部朝向信息,而且两者都包含空间指向信息.已有研究发现头部朝向会影响注视指向知觉的速度和准确性,为注视指向提供参照系,进而会影响注视指向诱发的社会性注意.头部朝向和注视指向加工的神经机制也存在着广泛的重合.因此,除眼睛注视以外,头部朝向也是建构和完善基于心理模型的社会性注意机制的一个关键因素.未来的研究应关注头部朝向与眼睛注视指向共同影响注意转移的作用机制,并且从功能整合的角度开展神经机制研究.     

The influence of head contour and nose angle on the perception of eye-gaze direction

We report seven experiments that investigate the influence that head orientation exerts on the perception of eye-gaze direction. In each of these experiments, participants were asked to decide whether the eyes in a brief and masked presentation were looking directly at them or were averted. In each case, the eyes could be presented alone, or in the context of congruent or incongruent stimuli In Experiment 1A, the congruent and incongruent stimuli were provided by the orientation of face features and head outline. Discrimination of gaze direction was found to be better when face and gaze were congruent than in both of the other conditions, an effect that was not eliminated by inversion of the stimuli (Experiment 1B). In Experiment 2A, the internal face features were removed, but the outline of the head profile was found to produce an identical pattern of effects on gaze discrimination, effects that were again insensitive to inversion (Experiment 2B) and which persisted when lateral displacement of the eyes was controlled (Experiment 2C). Finally, in Experiment 3A, nose angle was also found to influence participants' ability to discriminate direct gaze from averted gaze, but here the effect was eliminated by inversion of the stimuli (Experiment 3B). We concluded that an image-based mechanism is responsible for the influence of head profile on gaze perception, whereas the analysis of nose angle involves the configural processing of face features.     

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.     

Controlling attention to gaze and arrows in childhood: an fMRI study of typical development and Autism Spectrum Disorders

Functional magnetic resonance imaging was used to examine functional anatomy of attention to social (eye gaze) and nonsocial (arrow) communicative stimuli in late childhood and in a disorder defined by atypical processing of social stimuli, Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). Children responded to a target word ('LEFT'/'RIGHT') in the context of a distracting arrow or averted gaze pointing in a direction that was congruent, incongruent, or neutral (bar without arrowheads, central gaze) relative to the target word. Despite being irrelevant to the target task, both arrow and averted gaze facilitated responses (Congruent vs. Neutral trials) to the same extent in the two groups and led to interference (Incongruent vs. Congruent trials), which was greater from arrows in ASD than control children. In the brain, interaction between group and distracter-domain was observed in frontal-temporal regions during facilitation and frontal-striatal regions during interference. During facilitation, regions associated with attention to gaze in control children (left superior temporal sulcus, premotor) were associated with attention to arrows in ASD children; gaze was associated with medial temporal involvement in ASD children. During interference, regions associated with arrows in control children (anterior cingulate, right caudate) were activated in response to gaze in ASD children; further, left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, a region not observed in control children, was activated during gaze-interference in ASD children. Thus, functional anatomy was atypical in ASD children during spontaneous processing of social and nonsocial communicative cues.     

Eye gaze cannot be ignored (but neither can arrows)

Recent studies have tried to shed light on the automaticity of attentional shifts triggered by gaze and arrows with mixed results. In the present research, we aimed at testing a strong definition of resistance to suppression for orienting of attention elicited by these two cues. In five experiments, participants were informed with 100% certainty about the future location of a target they had to react to by presentation of either a direction word at the beginning of each trial or instructions at the beginning of each block. Gaze and arrows were presented before the target as uninformative distractors irrelevant for the task. The results showed similar patterns for gaze and arrows-namely, an interference effect when the distractors were incongruent with the upcoming target location. This suggests that the orienting of attention mediated by gaze and arrows can be considered as strongly automatic.     

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.     

Talking heads or talking eyes? Effects of head orientation and sudden onset gaze cues on attention capture

The direction of gaze towards or away from an observer has immediate effects on attentional processing in the observer. Previous research indicates that faces with direct gaze are processed more efficiently than faces with averted gaze. We recently reported additional processing advantages for faces that suddenly adopt direct gaze (abruptly shift from averted to direct gaze) relative to static direct gaze (always in direct gaze), sudden averted gaze (abruptly shift from direct to averted gaze), and static averted gaze (always in averted gaze). Because changes in gaze orientation in previous study co-occurred with changes in head orientation, it was not clear if the effect is contingent on face or eye processing, or whether it requires both the eyes and the face to provide consistent information. The present study delineates the impact of head orientation, sudden onset motion cues, and gaze cues. Participants completed a target-detection task in which head position remained in a static averted or direct orientation while sudden onset motion and eye gaze cues were manipulated within each trial. The results indicate a sudden direct gaze advantage that resulted from the additive role of motion and gaze cues. Interestingly, the orientation of the face towards or away from the observer did not influence the sudden direct gaze effect, suggesting that eye gaze cues, not face orientation cues, are critical for the sudden direct gaze effect.     

Effects of head orientation on gaze perception: How positive congruency effects can be reversed

Several past studies have considered how perceived head orientation may be combined with perceived gaze direction in judging where someone else is attending. In three experiments we tested the impact of different sources of information by examining the role of head orientation in gaze-direction judgements when presenting: (a) the whole face; (b) the face with the nose masked; (c) just the eye region, removing all other head-orientation cues apart from some visible part of the nose; or (d) just the eyes, with all parts of the nose masked and no head orientation cues present other than those within the eyes themselves. We also varied time pressure on gaze direction judgements. The results showed that gaze judgements were not solely driven by the eye region. Gaze perception can also be affected by parts of the head and face, but in a manner that depends on the time constraints for gaze direction judgements. While “positive” congruency effects were found with time pressure (i.e., faster left/right judgements of seen gaze when the seen head deviated towards the same side as that gaze), the opposite applied without time pressure.     

Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention

The face communicates an impressive amount of visual information. We use it to identify its owner, how they are feeling and to help us understand what they are saying. Models of face processing have considered how we extract such meaning from the face but have ignored another important signal - eye gaze. In this article we begin by reviewing evidence from recent neurophysiological studies that suggests that the eyes constitute a special stimulus in at least two senses. First, the structure of the eyes is such that it provides us with a particularly powerful signal to the direction of another person's gaze, and second, we may have evolved neural mechanisms devoted to gaze processing. As a result, gaze direction is analysed rapidly and automatically, and is able to trigger reflexive shifts of an observer's visual attention. However, understanding where another individual is directing their attention involves more than simply analysing their gaze direction. We go on to describe research with adult participants, children and non-human primates that suggests that other cues such as head orientation and pointing gestures make significant contributions to the computation of another's direction of attention.     

Effects of head orientation on gaze perception: how positive congruency effects can be reversed

Several past studies have considered how perceived head orientation may be combined with perceived gaze direction in judging where someone else is attending. In three experiments we tested the impact of different sources of information by examining the role of head orientation in gaze-direction judgements when presenting: (a) the whole face; (b) the face with the nose masked; (c) just the eye region, removing all other head-orientation cues apart from some visible part of the nose; or (d) just the eyes, with all parts of the nose masked and no head orientation cues present other than those within the eyes themselves. We also varied time pressure on gaze direction judgements. The results showed that gaze judgements were not solely driven by the eye region. Gaze perception can also be affected by parts of the head and face, but in a manner that depends on the time constraints for gaze direction judgements. While “positive” congruency effects were found with time pressure (i.e., faster left/right judgements of seen gaze when the seen head deviated towards the same side as that gaze), the opposite applied without time pressure.     

The look of love: gaze shifts and person perception

Gaze direction is a vital communicative channel through which people transmit information to each other. By signaling the locus of social attention, gaze cues convey information about the relative importance of objects, including other people, in the environment. For the most part, this information is communicated via patterns of gaze direction, with gaze shifts signaling changes in the objects of attention. Noting the relevance of gaze cues in social cognition, we speculated that gaze shifts may modulate people's evaluations of others. We investigated this possibility by asking participants to judge the likability (Experiment 1) and physical attractiveness (Experiment 2) of targets displaying gaze shifts indicative of attentional engagement or disengagement with the participants. As expected, person evaluation was moderated by the direction of gaze shifts, but only when the judgment under consideration was relevant to participants. We consider how and when gaze shifts may modulate person perception and its associated behavioral products.     

Learning and limits of use of eye gaze by capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) in an object-choice task

The ability of 3 capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) to use experimenter-given cues to solve an object-choice task was assessed. The monkeys learned to use explicit gestural and postural cues and then progressed to using eye-gaze-only cues to solve the task, that is, to choose the baited 1 of 2 objects and thus obtain a food reward. Increasing cue-stimulus distance and introducing movement of the eyes impeded the establishment of effective eye-gaze reading. One monkey showed positive but imperfect transfer of use of eye gaze when a novel experimenter presented the cue. When head and eye orientation cues were presented simultaneously and in conflict, the monkeys showed greater responsiveness to head orientation cues. The results show that capuchin monkeys can learn to use eye gaze as a discriminative cue, but there was no-evidence for any underlying awareness of eye gaze as a cue to direction of attention.     

Automatic Mechanisms for Social Attention Are Culturally Penetrable

Are mechanisms for social attention influenced by culture? Evidence that social attention is triggered automatically by bottom‐up gaze cues and is uninfluenced by top‐down verbal instructions may suggest it operates in the same way everywhere. Yet considerations from evolutionary and cultural psychology suggest that specific aspects of one's cultural background may have consequence for the way mechanisms for social attention develop and operate. In more interdependent cultures, the scope of social attention may be broader, focusing on more individuals and relations between those individuals. We administered a multi‐gaze cueing task requiring participants to fixate a foreground face flanked by background faces and measured shifts in attention using eye tracking. For European Americans, gaze cueing did not depend on the direction of background gaze cues, suggesting foreground gaze alone drives automatic attention shifting; for East Asians, cueing patterns differed depending on whether the foreground cue matched or mismatched background cues, suggesting foreground and background gaze information were integrated. These results demonstrate that cultural background influences the social attention system by shifting it into a narrow or broad mode of operation and, importantly, provides evidence challenging the assumption that mechanisms underlying automatic social attention are necessarily rigid and impenetrable to culture.