Explicit vs. implicit spatial processing in arrow vs. eye-gaze spatial congruency effects

Eye gaze is not unique: The reversed congruency effect on gaze and tongue targets

In the spatial Stroop task, an arrow target produces a spatial Stroop effect, whereas a gaze target elicits a reversed congruency effect. The reversed congruency effect has been explained by the unique attentional mechanisms of eye gaze. However, recent studies have shown that not only gaze but arrow targets produced a reversed congruency effect when embedded in a complex background. The present study investigated whether non-gaze targets produce a reversed congruency effect. In Experiments 1 and 2, we used the tongue, which is not commonly used to indicate spatial directions in daily life, as a target in the spatial Stroop task, in addition to the conventional gaze and arrows. In Experiment 3, we used arrow stimuli embedded in a complex background as a target. Participants judged the left/right direction of the target presented in the left or right visual field. Although arrow and gaze targets replicated previous findings (spatial Stroop and reversed congruency effect, respectively), the tongue target produced a reversed congruency effect (Experiments 1 and 2). The spatial Stroop effect of arrow targets disappeared when they were in a complex background (Experiment 3). These results are inconsistent with previous accounts emphasising the unique status of eye gaze. We propose that temporal decay of the location code and response inhibition are responsible for the reversal of spatial interference.

The reverse congruency effect elicited by eye-gaze as a function of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms

Individuals diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have been found to have impairments in multiple aspects of social cognition, thus including the attentional processing of socially relevant stimuli such as eye-gaze. However, to date, it remains unclear whether only the social-specific but not the domain-general directional components, elicited by eye-gaze are affected by ADHD symptomatology. To address this issue, the present study aimed to investigate the impact of ADHD-like traits on the social-specific attentional processing of eye-gaze. To this purpose, we conducted an online experiment with a sample of 140 healthy undergraduate participants who completed two self-reported questionnaires designed to assess ADHD-like traits, and a social variant of an interference spatial task known to effectively isolate the social-specific component of eye-gaze. To make our research plan transparent, our hypotheses, together with the plans of analyses, were registered before data exploration. Results showed that while the social-specific component of eye-gaze was evident in the sample, no significant correlation was found between this component and the measured ADHD-like traits. These results appear to contradict the intuition that the attentional processing of the social-specific components of eye-gaze may be impaired by ADHD symptomatology. However, further research involving children and clinical populations is needed in order to clarify this matter.

Perceiving social gaze produces the reversed congruency effect

Numerous studies have shown that the gaze of others produces a special attentional process, such as the eye contact effect or joint attention. This study investigated the attentional process triggered by various types of gaze stimuli (i.e., human, cat, fish, koala, and robot gaze). A total of 300 university students participated in five experiments. They performed a spatial Stroop task in which five types of gaze stimuli were presented as targets. Participants were asked to judge the direction of the target (left or right) irrespective of its location (left or right). The results showed that the social gaze targets (i.e., human and cat gaze) produced a reversed congruency effect. In contrast to the social gaze targets, the non-social gaze (i.e., fish and robot) target did not produce the reversed congruency effect (Experiments 2, 2B, 3, and 4). These results suggest that attention to the gaze of socially communicable beings (i.e., humans and cats) is responsible for the reversed congruency effect. Our findings support the notion that the theory of mind or social interaction plays an important role in producing specific attentional processes in response to gaze stimuli.

Neural basis of social attention: common and distinct mechanisms for social and nonsocial orienting stimuli

Social and nonsocial directional stimuli (such as gaze and arrows, respectively) share their ability to trigger attentional processes, although the issue of whether social stimuli generate other additional (and unique) attentional effects is still under debate. In this study, we used the spatial interference paradigm to explore, using functional magnetic resonance imaging, shared and dissociable brain activations produced by gaze and arrows. Results showed a common set of regions (right parieto-temporo-occipital) similarly involved in conflict resolution for gaze and arrows stimuli, which showed stronger co-activation for incongruent than congruent trials. The frontal eye field showed stronger functional connectivity with occipital regions for congruent as compared with incongruent trials, and this effect was enhanced for gaze as compared with arrow stimuli in the right hemisphere. Moreover, spatial interference produced by incongruent (as compared with congruent) arrows was associated with increased functional coupling between the right frontal eye field and a set of regions in the left hemisphere. This result was not observed for incongruent (as compared with congruent) gaze stimuli. The right frontal eye field also showed greater coupling with left temporo-occipital regions for those conditions in which larger conflict was observed (arrow incongruent vs. gaze incongruent trials, and gaze congruent vs. arrow congruent trials). These findings support the view that social and nonsocial stimuli share some attentional mechanisms, while at the same time highlighting other differential effects. Highlights Attentional orienting triggered by social (gaze) and nonsocial (arrow) cues is comparable. When social and nonsocial stimuli are used as targets, qualitatively different behavioral effects are observed. This study explores the neural bases of shared and dissociable neural mechanisms for social and nonsocial stimuli. Shared mechanisms were found in the functional coupling between right parieto-temporo-occipital regions. Dissociable mechanisms were found in the functional coupling between right frontal eye field and ipsilateral and contralateral occipito-temporal regions.

Individual differences in gaze-cuing effect are associated with facial emotion recognition and social conformity

Spontaneous gaze following and the concomitant joint attention enable us to share representations of the world with others, which forms a foundation of a broad range of social cognitive processes. Although this form of social orienting has long been suggested as a critical starting point for the development of social and communicative behavior, there is limited evidence directly linking it to higher-level social cognitive processes among healthy adults. Here, using a gaze-cuing paradigm, we examined whether individual differences in gaze following tendency predict higher-order social cognition and behavior among healthy adults. We found that individuals who showed greater gaze-cuing effect performed better in recognizing others' emotion and had greater tendency to conform with group opinion. These findings provide empirical evidence supporting the fundamental role of low-level socio-attentional processes in human sociality.

Are there quantitative differences between eye-gaze and arrow cues? A meta-analytic answer to the debate and a call for qualitative differences

Gaze acts from an early age as a cue to orient attention and, thereafter, to infer our social partners' intentions, thoughts, and emotions. Variants of the attentional orienting paradigm have been used to study the orienting capabilities associated to eye gaze. However, to date, it is still unclear whether this methodology truly assesses "social-specific" processes exclusively involved in attention to eye-gaze or the operation of domain-general attentional processes. The present study provides a comprehensive meta-analysis indicating that eye-gaze and non-social directional stimuli, such as arrows, produce equivalent attentional effects. This result casts doubt on the potential utility of the classic cueing task in revealing social-specific processes. On the other hand, we review behavioral evidence suggesting that eye-gaze stimuli may induce higher-order social processes when more specific experimental procedures that analyze qualitative rather than quantitative differences are used. These findings point to an integrated view in which domain-general and social specific processes both contribute to the attentional mechanisms induced by eye-gaze direction. Finally, some proposals about the social components specifically triggered by eye-gaze stimuli are discussed.

The Neurobiological Correlates of Gaze Perception in Healthy Individuals and Neurologic Patients

The ability to adaptively follow conspecific eye movements is crucial for establishing shared attention and survival. Indeed, in humans, interacting with the gaze direction of others causes the reflexive orienting of attention and the faster object detection of the signaled spatial location. The behavioral evidence of this phenomenon is called gaze-cueing. Although this effect can be conceived as automatic and reflexive, gaze-cueing is often susceptible to context. In fact, gaze-cueing was shown to interact with other factors that characterize facial stimulus, such as the kind of cue that induces attention orienting (i.e., gaze or non-symbolic cues) or the emotional expression conveyed by the gaze cues. Here, we address neuroimaging evidence, investigating the neural bases of gaze-cueing and the perception of gaze direction and how contextual factors interact with the gaze shift of attention. Evidence from neuroimaging, as well as the fields of non-invasive brain stimulation and neurologic patients, highlights the involvement of the amygdala and the superior temporal lobe (especially the superior temporal sulcus (STS)) in gaze perception. However, in this review, we also emphasized the discrepancies of the attempts to characterize the distinct functional roles of the regions in the processing of gaze. Finally, we conclude by presenting the notion of invariant representation and underline its value as a conceptual framework for the future characterization of the perceptual processing of gaze within the STS.