MEG measures of covert orienting and gaze processing in children

Emotion first: children prioritize emotional faces in gaze-cued attentional orienting

Children shift their attention based on the gaze direction of another person but it is unclear whether they prioritize only the gaze of fearful faces over neutral ones or more generally, the gaze of emotional faces. School children performed a gaze-cueing task, in which central, non-predictive happy, angry, and neutral face-cues were briefly presented with averted gaze. Findings for 9-10-year-old children showed that the magnitude of gaze-cueing effects for happy and angry face-cues was similar and it was particularly larger with angry compared to neutral face-cues. In contrast, 6-7-year-old children showed gaze-cueing effects only with happy face-cues. The present findings clearly indicate that older children show emotion-enhanced gaze-cueing effects. In contrast, younger children did not show gaze-cueing effects with neutral and angry faces but they did with happy faces. The implications of age differences in the ability to prioritize emotional faces when shifting attention based on the observed gaze direction of a non-predictive face-cue are discussed in the context of the extant literature.

Children can implicitly, but not voluntarily, direct attention in time

Children are able to use spatial cues to orient their attention to discrete locations in space from around 4 years of age. In contrast, no research has yet investigated the ability of children to use informative cues to voluntarily predict when an event will occur in time. The spatial and temporal attention task was used to determine whether children were able to voluntarily orient their attention in time, as well as in space: symbolic spatial and temporal cues predicted where or when an imperative target would appear. Thirty typically developing children (average age 11 yrs) and 32 adults (average age 27 yrs) took part. Confirming previous findings, adults made use of both spatial and temporal cues to optimise behaviour, and were significantly slower to respond to invalidly cued targets in either space or time. Children were also significantly slowed by invalid spatial cues, demonstrating their use of spatial cues to guide expectations. In contrast, children’s responses were not slowed by invalid temporal cues, suggesting that they were not using the temporal cue to voluntarily orient attention through time. Children, as well as adults, did however demonstrate signs of more implicit forms of temporal expectation: RTs were faster for long versus short cue-target intervals (the variable foreperiod effect) and slower when the preceding trial’s cue-target interval was longer than that on the current trial (sequential effects). Overall, our results suggest that although children implicitly made use of the temporally predictive information carried by the length of the current and previous trial’s cue-target interval, they could not deliberately use symbolic temporal cues to speed responses. The developmental trajectory of the ability to voluntarily use symbolic temporal cues is therefore delayed, relative both to the use of symbolic (arrow) spatial cues, and to the use of implicit temporal information.