Attention orienting by eye gaze and arrows reveals flexibility to environmental changes

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.

Self-referential and social saliency information influences memory following attention orienting

Self-referential information is a processing priority in individuals. Whether or how self-referential information plays a role in attention orienting by modulating memory encoding during attention orienting is presently unknown. First, we investigated this role with self-referential processing for words. Participants were trained to associate two cues (red and green arrows) with social labels (the words "self" and "other" in Experiment 1). Then, participants performed a cueing task to determine whether various targets were presented at a right or left location. Finally, a recognition task of target items was implemented to examine the influence of arrow cues on memory. Second, given that the difference in social salience also exists between self-and other-referential processing, we investigate whether the same effect as the self-referential processing of words exists for emotional faces with high social salience and regardless of emotional valence (a high and a low social salience in Experiment 2A; and a positive and a negative emotional face in Experiment 2B). The results showed that self-referential and emotional cues, irrespective of their emotional valence, enhance memory for the indicated target objects across experiments. This suggests that automatic prioritization of social salience for self-referential words or emotional faces plays an important role in subsequent cognitive processing through attention orienting to influence memory.

Does Eye Gaze Uniquely Trigger Spatial Orienting to Socially Relevant Information? A Behavioral and ERP Study

Using behavioral and event-related potential (ERP) measures, the present study examined whether eye gaze triggers a unique form of attentional orienting toward threat-relevant targets. A threatening or neutral target was presented after a non-predictive gaze or an arrow cue. In Experiment 1, reaction times indicated that eye gaze and arrow cues triggered different attention orienting towards threatening targets, which was confirmed by target-elicited P3b latency in Experiment 2. Specifically, for targets preceded by arrow and gaze cues, P3b peak latency was shorter for neutral targets than threatening targets. However, the latency differences were significantly smaller for gaze cues than for arrow cues. Moreover, target-elicited N2 amplitude indicated a significantly stronger cue validity effect of eye gaze than that of arrows. These findings suggest that eye gaze uniquely triggers spatial attention orienting to socially threatening information.

Conflict Tasks of Different Types Divergently Affect the Attentional Processing of Gaze and Arrow

The present study explored the attentional processing mechanisms of gaze and arrow cues in two different types of conflict tasks. In Experiment 1, participants performed a flanker task in which gaze and arrow cues were presented as central targets or bilateral distractors. The congruency between the direction of the target and the distractors was manipulated. Results showed that arrow distractors greatly interfered with the attentional processing of gaze, while the processing of arrow direction was immune to conflict from gaze distractors. Using a spatial compatibility task, Experiment 2 explored the conflict effects exerted on gaze and arrow processing by their relative spatial locations. When the direction of the arrow was in conflict with its spatial layout on screen, response times were slowed; however, the encoding of gaze was unaffected by spatial location. In general, processing to an arrow cue is less influenced by bilateral gaze cues but is affected by irrelevant spatial information, while processing to a gaze cue is greatly disturbed by bilateral arrows but is unaffected by irrelevant spatial information. Different effects on gaze and arrow cues by different types of conflicts may reflect two relatively distinct specific modes of the attentional process.

The Influence of Self-Referential Processing on Attentional Orienting in Frontoparietal Networks

Self-referential processing refers to the processing of information relevant to oneself and plays an important role in cognition. Behavioral studies have shown that directional cue stimuli have a qualitatively different function during attentional orienting after presentation of the cue associated with the self. However, it is necessary to determine how neural activity is influenced by self-referential processing during attentional orienting. The present study involved establishing an association between non-predictive arrow cues and the "self" during a training task and then investigating the influence of self-referential processing on neural activity during attentional orienting. Enhanced neural activity was observed in cortical midline structures (CMS) during the use of self- vs. neutral-arrow cues, which suggests that the arrow associated with the "self" triggered self-referential processing during attentional orienting due to the experiences of the participant in the training task. Comparison of obtained under the incongruent and congruent conditions revealed a qualitative difference in neural activities between the self- and neutral-arrow cues associated with attentional orienting. Furthermore, when the neutral-arrow cue was treated as a baseline condition, neural activity was reduced in the frontoparietal attention networks by self-referential processing under the incongruent condition, but it was enhanced under the congruent condition. Thus, the stimulus modulated subsequent attentional neural processes after being associated with the self as a cue, which indicates that this process may be triggered by self-reference to automatically and effectively capture information. Our findings extend those of previous behavioral studies of neural activity, suggesting that directional cues were qualitatively influenced by self-referential processing, and showed different functions during attentional orienting. Moreover, the present study provides important evidence of how self-referential processing affects attentional orienting in the frontoparietal network. Highlights -Enhanced activity was observed in CMS due to self-referential processing.-The influence of self-referential processing differed in the frontoparietal network.-Activity was enhanced by self-referential processing under the congruent condition.-Activity was reduced by self-referential processing under the incongruent condition.

Target object moderation of attentional orienting by gazes or arrows

Recent studies have attempted to demonstrate the importance of the characteristics of directional cues and observers' traits in attentional orienting. This study investigated how attentional orienting is influenced by target processing. Two experiments showed the critical role played by target processing in attentional orienting that relies on eye-gaze and arrow cues. In Experiment 1, stronger attentional orienting was observed under the object-target condition compared with the scrambled-display condition, irrespective of whether gaze or arrow cues were used. The results indicated that meaningful targets produced stronger attentional orienting than did meaningless targets, regardless of the social characteristics of the target. Experiment 2, which investigated whether attentional orienting was influenced by differences in the meaningfulness of targets regardless of their perceptual features, used participants' own faces and the faces of others as target stimuli; one's own face is typically more meaningful than the face of another. The results showed stronger attentional orienting in response to one's own face than in response to another's face under both gaze and arrow conditions. These findings suggest that the use of task-irrelevant meaningful information as targets may be effective in enhancing attention, regardless of perceptual features.

Controlling attention to gaze and arrows in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

The aim of this research was to assess implicit processing of social and non-social distracting cues in children with ADHD. Young people with ADHD and matched controls were asked to classify target words (LEFT/RIGHT) which were accompanied by a distracter eye-gaze or arrow. Typically developing participants showed evidence of interference effects from both eye-gaze and arrow distracters. In contrast, the ADHD group showed evidence of interference effects from arrow but failed to show interference from eye-gaze. This absence of interference effects from eye-gaze observed in the participants with ADHD may reflect an attentional impairment in attending to socially relevant information.

Atypical Gaze Cueing Pattern in a Complex Environment in Individuals with ASD

Clinically, social interaction, including gaze-triggered attention, has been reported to be impaired in autism spectrum disorder (ASD), but psychological studies have generally shown intact gaze-triggered attention in ASD. These studies typically examined gaze-triggered attention under simple environmental conditions. In real life, however, the environment is complex. Previous studies have shown that an enhanced cueing effect was found when using eye gaze compared with arrow cues in unpredictably complex conditions in typically developing (TD) individuals. However, in the current study, compared with TD individuals, the cueing effect failed to enhance when using eye gaze compared with arrow cues under complex conditions in individuals with ASD. This may reflect the atypical style of gaze-triggered attention when individuals with ASD adapt to environmental complexity.

Altered orienting of attention in anorexia nervosa

The study of cognitive processes in anorexia nervosa (AN) is largely unexplored, although recent evidence suggests the presence of impairments in both social cognition and attention processing. Here we investigated AN patients' ability to orient attention in response to social and symbolic visual stimuli. AN patients and matched controls performed a task in which gaze and pointing gestures acted as social directional cues for spatial attention. Arrows were also included as symbolic cue. On each trial, a centrally-placed cue appeared oriented rightwards or leftwards. After either 200 or 700ms, a lateralized neutral target (a letter) requiring a discrimination response appeared in a location either spatially congruent or incongruent with the directional cue. Controls showed a reliable orienting irrespective of both temporal interval and cue type. AN patients showed a reliable orienting at both temporal intervals only in response to pointing gestures. Both gaze and arrow cues failed to orient attention at the short temporal interval, that is when attention is under reflexive control, whereas a reliable orienting emerged at the long temporal interval. These results provide preliminary evidence of altered reflexive orienting of attention in AN patients that does not extend to body-related cues such as pointing gestures.

Self make-up: the influence of self-referential processing on attention orienting

For humans, both eye gaze and arrows serve as powerful signals for orienting attention. Recent studies have shown important differences between gaze and arrows in attention orienting; however, the mechanisms underlying these differences are not known. One such mechanism may be self-referential processing. To investigate this possibility, we trained participants to associate two cues (a red and green arrow in Experiment 1A and two different faces in Experiment 1B) with distinct words (“self” and “other”). Then, we manipulated two types of sound (voice and tone) as targets to investigate whether the cueing effect to self- and other-referential cues differs in a manner similar to that reported for gaze and arrows. We found that self-, but not other-, referential cues induced an enhanced cueing effect to the voice target relative to the tone target regardless of the cue characteristic (i.e., biological or non-biological). Our results suggest that the difference between gaze and arrows in orienting attention can be explained, at least in part, by the self-referentiality of gaze. Furthermore, in Experiment 2, we found a reverse cueing pattern between gaze and arrow cues by manipulating subjects’ experiences, suggesting that differences in the self-referentiality of gaze and arrow cues are not inherent.