The effect of face eccentricity on the perception of gaze direction

How facial masks alter the interaction of gaze direction, head orientation, and emotion recognition

The COVID-19 pandemic has altered the way we interact with each other: mandatory mask-wearing obscures facial information that is crucial for emotion recognition. Whereas the influence of wearing a mask on emotion recognition has been repeatedly investigated, little is known about the impact on interaction effects among emotional signals and other social signals. Therefore, the current study sought to explore how gaze direction, head orientation, and emotional expression interact with respect to emotion perception, and how these interactions are altered by wearing a face mask. In two online experiments, we presented face stimuli from the Radboud Faces Database displaying different facial expressions (anger, fear, happiness, neutral, and sadness), gaze directions (−13°, 0°, and 13°), and head orientations (−45°, 0°, and 45°) – either without (Experiment 1) or with mask (Experiment 2). Participants categorized the displayed emotional expressions. Not surprisingly, masks impaired emotion recognition. Surprisingly, without the mask, emotion recognition was unaffected by averted head orientations and only slightly affected by gaze direction. The mask strongly interfered with this ability. The mask increased the influence of head orientation and gaze direction, in particular for the emotions that were poorly recognized with mask. The results suggest that in case of uncertainty due to ambiguity or absence of signals, we seem to unconsciously factor in extraneous information.

Looking Into Mona Lisa’s Smiling Eyes: Allusion to an Illusion

We present results from two experiments aimed at studying the direction of Mona Lisa’s gaze and its affective expression. In experiment 1 we studied the effect of retinal image size on the perception of her gaze by manipulating observation distances of a high-quality print of the painting. Participants (N = 30) were asked to answer a simple question (is the person portrayed looking at you?) from six different distances ranging from 55 to 755 cm. One group of participants started evaluations from 55 cm; the other group did the opposite. Results show an effect of distance on the perception of Mona Lisa’s gaze as staring at the observer: from the furthest distances, the impression of a staring Mona Lisa is robust; from the nearest distances, such impression becomes ambiguous. Experiment 2 presents data concerning the direction of Mona Lisa’s gaze and whether this appears to be smiling, derived from an experiment aimed at studying the impression of gaze (direction and emotional content) in portraits (paintings and photographs). Only data concerning Mona Lisa are reported. Participants (N = 41) were randomly assigned to one of two groups: on a LCD screen, one group saw the entire head, and the other group saw only a section reproducing Mona Lisa’s eyes. Experimental sessions were two: in session 1 participants had to decide whether the image (whole-head or eyes only) was looking at them; in session 2 participants had to decide whether the head (or the eyes) was smiling. RTs from the two groups of participants were not statistically significant. Results for session 1 confirm experiment 1’s general findings. Results for session 2 clearly show that Mona Lisa is not only smiling with her face, but also with her eyes. Results are discussed in relation to the literature on Mona Lisa’s gaze and smile.

Holistic processing of gaze cues during interocular suppression

Direct eye contact is preferentially processed over averted gaze and has been shown to gain privileged access to conscious awareness during interocular suppression. This advantage might be driven by local features associated with direct gaze, such as the amount of visible sclera. Alternatively, a holistic representation of gaze direction, which depends on the integration of head and eye information, might drive the effects. Resolving this question is interesting because it speaks to whether the processing of higher-level social information in the visual system, such as facial characteristics that rely on holistic processing, is dependent on conscious awareness. The Wollaston Illusion is a visual illusion that allows researchers to manipulate perceived gaze direction while keeping local eye features constant. Here we used this illusion to elucidate the driving factor facilitating the direct gaze advantage during interocular suppression. Using continuous flash suppression, we rendered Wollaston faces with direct and averted gaze (initially) invisible. These faces conveyed different gaze directions but contained identical eye regions. Our results showed clear evidence for a direct gaze advantage with Wollaston faces, indicating that holistic representations of gaze direction may drive the direct gaze advantage during interocular suppression.

Inverting the Wollaston Illusion: Gaze Direction Attracts Perceived Head Orientation

In the early 19th century, William H. Wollaston impressed the Royal Society of London with engravings of portraits. He manipulated facial features, such as the nose, and thereby dramatically changed the perceived gaze direction, although the eye region with iris and eye socket had remained unaltered. This Wollaston illusion can be thought of as head orientation attracting perceived gaze direction when the eye region is unchanged. In naturalistic viewing, the eye region changes with head orientation and typically produces a repulsion effect. Here we explore if there is a flip side to the illusion. Does the gaze direction also alter the perceived direction of the head? We used copies of the original drawings and a computer-rendered avatar as stimuli. Gaze direction does indeed alter perceived head orientation. Perceived head orientation is biased toward the direction of gaze.

The roles of gaze and head orientation in face categorization during rapid serial visual presentation

Little is known about how perceived gaze direction and head orientation may influence human categorization of visual stimuli as faces. To address this question, a sequence of unsegmented natural images, each containing a random face or a non-face object, was presented in rapid succession (stimulus duration: 91.7 ms per image) during which human observers were instructed to respond immediately to every face presentation. Faces differed in gaze and head orientation in 7 combinations - full-front views with perceived gaze (1) directed to the observer, (2) averted to the left, or (3) averted to the right, left ¾ side views with (4) direct gaze or (5) averted gaze, and right ¾ side views with (6) direct gaze or (7) averted gaze - were presented randomly throughout the sequence. We found highly accurate and rapid behavioural responses to all kinds of faces. Crucially, both perceived gaze direction and head orientation had comparable, non-interactive effects on response times, where direct gaze was responded faster than averted gaze by 48 ms and full-front view faster than ¾ side view also by 48 ms on average. Presentations of full-front faces with direct gaze led to an additive speed advantage of 96 ms to ¾ faces with averted gaze. The results reveal that the effects of perceived gaze direction and head orientation on the speed of face categorization probably depend on the degree of social relevance of the face to the viewer.

From Gaze Perception to Social Cognition: The Shared-Attention System

When two people look at the same object in the environment and are aware of each other's attentional state, they find themselves in a shared-attention episode. This can occur through intentional or incidental signaling and, in either case, causes an exchange of information between the two parties about the environment and each other's mental states. In this article, we give an overview of what is known about the building blocks of shared attention (gaze perception and joint attention) and focus on bringing to bear new findings on the initiation of shared attention that complement knowledge about gaze following and incorporate new insights from research into the sense of agency. We also present a neurocognitive model, incorporating first-, second-, and third-order social cognitive processes (the shared-attention system, or SAS), building on previous models and approaches. The SAS model aims to encompass perceptual, cognitive, and affective processes that contribute to and follow on from the establishment of shared attention. These processes include fundamental components of social cognition such as reward, affective evaluation, agency, empathy, and theory of mind.

What Are Visual Illusions?

Visual illusions have been a popular topic of study for a long time, but in recent years, a number of authors have questioned the coherence of this notion. This article deals in depth with ways in which illusions have been, could be, and should be defined and with various criticisms and different conceptions of the notion of illusions. After a review of definitions of illusions in the relevant literature, a more comprehensive but also more restrictive framework is presented, involving both veridicality and illusoriness, and is illustrated using two variants of a 2 × 2 scheme for the presentation of illusions. Many different aspects of illusions are discussed. A set of criteria for illusionhood is listed. Criticisms of the notion of illusions are presented, commented upon, and responded to. Conceptions of illusions differing from the one advocated here are discussed. Throughout the paper, novel variations of illusions are shown, and problems with accounts of some well-known illusions are noted. Examples of strong context effects which are not considered to be illusions are presented. It is concluded that the notion of visual illusions, suitably reformulated, is still viable.

Quantifying the Wollaston Illusion

In the early 19th century, William H. Wollaston impressed the Royal Society of London with engravings of portraits. He manipulated facial features, such as the nose, and thereby dramatically changed the perceived gaze direction, although the eye region with iris and eye socket had remained unaltered. This Wollaston illusion has been replicated numerous times but never with the original stimuli. We took the eyes (pupil and iris) from Wollaston's most prominent engraving and measured their perceived gaze direction in an analog fashion. We then systematically added facial features (eye socket, eyebrows, nose, skull, and hair). These features had the power to divert perceived gaze direction by up to 20°, which confirms Wollaston's phenomenal observation. The effect can be thought of as an attractor effect, that is, cues that indicate a slight change in head orientation have the power to divert perceived gaze direction.

Deconstructing eye contact perception: Measuring perceptual precision and self-referential tendency using an online psychophysical eye contact detection task

Eye contact perception—the ability to accurately and efficiently discriminate others’ gaze directions—is critical to understanding others and functioning in a complex social world. Previous research shows that it is affected in multiple neuropsychiatric disorders accompanied by social dysfunction, and understanding the cognitive processes giving rise to eye contact perception would help advance mechanistic investigations of psychopathology. This study aims to validate an online, psychophysical eye contact detection task through which two constituent cognitive components of eye contact perception (perceptual precision and self-referential tendency) can be derived. Data collected from a large online sample showed excellent test-retest reliability for self-referential tendency and moderate reliability for perceptual precision. Convergence validity was supported by correlations with social cognitive measures tapping into different aspects of understanding others. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that perceptual precision and self-referential tendency explained unique variance in social cognition, suggesting that they measure unique aspects of related constructs. Overall, this study provided support for the reliability and validity of the eye contact perception metrics derived using the online Eye Contact Detection Task. The value of the task for future psychopathology research was discussed.

Turning Heads: The Effects of Face View and Eye Gaze Direction on the Perceived Attractiveness of Expressive Faces

We investigated whether the perceived attractiveness of expressive faces was influenced by head turn and eye gaze towards or away from the observer. In all experiments, happy faces were consistently rated as more attractive than angry faces. A head turn towards the observer, whereby a full-face view was shown, was associated with relatively higher attractiveness ratings when gaze direction was aligned with face view (Experiment 1). However, preference for full-face views of happy faces was not affected by gaze shifts towards or away from the observer (Experiment 2a). In Experiment 3, the relative duration of each face view (front-facing or averted at 15°) during a head turn away or towards the observer was manipulated. There was benefit on attractiveness ratings for happy faces shown for a longer duration from the front view, regardless of the direction of head turn. Our findings support previous studies indicating a preference for positive expressions on attractiveness judgements, which is further enhanced by the front views of faces, whether presented during a head turn or shown statically. In sum, our findings imply a complex interaction between cues of social attention, indicated by the view of the face shown, and reward on attractiveness judgements of unfamiliar faces.

The Effects of Hemianopia on Perception of Mutual Gaze

SIGNIFICANCE

Individuals with left hemianopic field loss (HFL), especially with neglect history, may have greater difficulties than individuals with right HFL in judging the direction of another person's gaze.

PURPOSE

Individuals with HFL often show a spatial bias in laboratory-based perceptual tasks. We investigated whether such biases also manifest in a more real-world task, perception of mutual gaze direction, an important, nonverbal communication cue in social interactions.

METHODS

Participants adjusted the eye position of a life-size virtual head on a monitor at a 1-m distance until (1) the eyes appeared to be looking straight at them, or (2) the eyes were perceived to be no longer looking at them (to the right and left).

RESULTS

Participants with right HFL (n = 8) demonstrated a rightward error in line bisection but made gaze judgments within the range of normally sighted controls (n = 17). Participants with left HFL without neglect history (n = 6) made leftward errors in line bisection and had more variable gaze judgments; three had estimates of gaze direction outside the reference range. Four participants with left HFL and neglect history made estimates of gaze direction that were to the right of the reference range.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that individuals with left HFL, especially with neglect history, may have greater difficulties than individuals with right HFL in compensating for low-level spatial biases (as manifested in line bisection) when performing the more complex, higher-level task of judging gaze direction.

Task Dependent Effects of Head Orientation on Perceived Gaze Direction

The perception of gaze direction involves the integration of a number of sensory cues exterior to the eye-region. The orientation of the head is one such cue, which has an overall repulsive effect on the perceived direction of gaze. However, in a recent experiment, we found the measured effect of head orientation on perceived gaze direction differed within subjects, depending on whether a single- or two-interval task design was employed. This suggests a potential difference in the way the orientation of the head is integrated into the perception of gaze direction across tasks. Four experiments were conducted to investigate this difference. The first two experiments showed that the difference was not the result of some interaction between stimuli in the two-interval task, but rather, a difference between the types of judgment being made across tasks, where observers were making a directional (left/right) judgment in the single-interval task, and a non-directional (direct/indirect gaze) judgment in the two-interval task. A third experiment showed that this difference does not arise from observers utilizing a non-directional cue to direct gaze (the circularity of the pupil/iris) in making their non-directional judgments. The fourth experiment showed no substantial differences in the duration of evidence accumulation and processing between judgments, suggesting that observers are not integrating different sensory information across tasks. Together these experiments show that the sensory information from head orientation is flexibly weighted in the perception of gaze direction, and that the purpose of the observer, in sampling gaze information, can influence the consequent perception of gaze direction.

How wide is the cone of direct gaze?

The cone of direct gaze refers to the range of gaze deviations an observer accepts as looking directly at them. Previous experiments have calculated the width of the cone of direct gaze using the gaze deviations actually presented to the observer, however, there is considerable evidence that observers actually perceive gaze to be systematically more deviated than actually presented. Here, we examine the width of the cone of direct gaze in units of perceived gaze deviation. In doing so, we are able to disambiguate differences in width both within and between observers that are due to differences in their perception of gaze and due to differences in what observers consider to be looking at them. We suggest that this line of inquiry can offer further insight into the perception of gaze direction, and how this perception may differ in clinical populations.

The Role of the Pupil, Corneal Reflex, and Iris in Determining the Perceived Direction of Gaze

In specially constructed movies depicting moving eyes, the pupils, irises, and corneal reflexes moved independently and sometimes in opposite directions. We found that the moving pupils or the corneal reflex, not the moving irises, determined the perceived direction of gaze (online Movie 1). When the pupils and irises moved in opposite directions, the one with the higher Michelson contrast determined the perceived direction of gaze (online Movie 2).

Processing of gaze direction within the N170/M170 time window: A combined EEG/MEG study

Gaze direction is an important social signal for human beings. Beside the role of gaze in attention orienting, direct gaze (that is, gaze directed toward an observer) is a highly relevant biological stimulus that elicits attention capture and increases face encoding. Brain imaging studies have emphasized the role of the superior temporal sulcus (STS) in the coding of gaze direction and in the integration of gaze and head cues of social attention. The dynamics of the processing and integration of these cues remains, however, unclear. In order to address this question, we used deviated and frontal faces with averted and direct gaze in a combined electro- and magneto- encephalography (EEG-MEG) study. We showed distinct effects of gaze direction on the N170 and M170 responses. There was an interaction between gaze direction and head orientation between 134 and 162ms in MEG and a main effect of gaze direction between 171 and 186ms in EEG. These effects involved the posterior and anterior regions of the STS respectively. Both effects also emphasized the sensitivity to direct gaze. These data highlight the central role of the STS in gaze processing.

Asymmetry in Gaze Direction Discrimination Between the Upper and Lower Visual Fields

Previous research has shown that gaze direction can only be accurately discriminated within parafoveal limits (∼5° eccentricity) along the horizontal visual field. Beyond this eccentricity, head orientation seems to influence gaze discrimination more than iris cues. The present study examined gaze discrimination performance in the upper visual field (UVF) and lower visual field (LVF), and whether head orientation affects gaze judgments beyond parafoveal vision. Direct and averted gaze faces, in frontal and deviated head orientations, were presented for 150 ms along the vertical meridian while participants maintained central fixation during gaze discrimination judgments. Gaze discrimination was above chance level at all but one eccentricity for the two gaze-head congruent conditions. In contrast, for the incongruent conditions, gaze was discriminated above chance only from -1.5° to +3°, with an asymmetry between the UVF and LVF. Beyond foveal vision, response rates were biased toward head orientation rather than iris eccentricity, occurring in the LVF for both head orientations, and in the UVF for frontal head views. These findings suggest that covert processing of gaze direction involves the integration of eyes and head cues, with congruency of these two social cues driving response differences between the LVF and the UVF.

Facing the Spectator

We investigated the familiar phenomenon of the uncanny feeling that represented people in frontal pose invariably appear to “face you” from wherever you stand. We deploy two different methods. The stimuli include the conventional one—a flat portrait rocking back and forth about a vertical axis—augmented with two novel variations. In one alternative, the portrait frame rotates whereas the actual portrait stays motionless and fronto-parallel; in the other, we replace the (flat!) portrait with a volumetric object. These variations yield exactly the same optical stimulation in frontal view, but become grossly different in very oblique views. We also let participants sample their momentary awareness through “gauge object” settings in static displays. From our results, we conclude that the psychogenesis of visual awareness maintains a number—at least two, but most likely more—of distinct spatial frameworks simultaneously involving “cue–scission.” Cues may be effective in one of these spatial frameworks but ineffective or functionally different in other ones.

Effects of Facial Symmetry and Gaze Direction on Perception of Social Attributes: A Study in Experimental Art History

This article explores the possibility of testing hypotheses about art production in the past by collecting data in the present. We call this enterprise "experimental art history". Why did medieval artists prefer to paint Christ with his face directed towards the beholder, while profane faces were noticeably more often painted in different degrees of profile? Is a preference for frontal faces motivated by deeper evolutionary and biological considerations? Head and gaze direction is a significant factor for detecting the intentions of others, and accurate detection of gaze direction depends on strong contrast between a dark iris and a bright sclera, a combination that is only found in humans among the primates. One uniquely human capacity is language acquisition, where the detection of shared or joint attention, for example through detection of gaze direction, contributes significantly to the ease of acquisition. The perceived face and gaze direction is also related to fundamental emotional reactions such as fear, aggression, empathy and sympathy. The fast-track modulator model presents a related fast and unconscious subcortical route that involves many central brain areas. Activity in this pathway mediates the affective valence of the stimulus. In particular, different sub-regions of the amygdala show specific activation as response to gaze direction, head orientation and the valence of facial expression. We present three experiments on the effects of face orientation and gaze direction on the judgments of social attributes. We observed that frontal faces with direct gaze were more highly associated with positive adjectives. Does this help to associate positive values to the Holy Face in a Western context? The formal result indicates that the Holy Face is perceived more positively than profiles with both direct and averted gaze. Two control studies, using a Brazilian and a Dutch database of photographs, showed a similar but weaker effect with a larger contrast between the gaze directions for profiles. Our findings indicate that many factors affect the impression of a face, and that eye contact in combination with face direction reinforce the general impression of portraits, rather than determine it.

Spatial limitations in averaging social cues

The direction of social attention from groups provides stronger cueing than from an individual. It has previously been shown that both basic visual features such as size or orientation and more complex features such as face emotion and identity can be averaged across multiple elements. Here we used an equivalent noise procedure to compare observers' ability to average social cues with their averaging of a non-social cue. Estimates of observers' internal noise (uncertainty associated with processing any individual) and sample-size (the effective number of gaze-directions pooled) were derived by fitting equivalent noise functions to discrimination thresholds. We also used reverse correlation analysis to estimate the spatial distribution of samples used by participants. Averaging of head-rotation and cone-rotation was less noisy and more efficient than averaging of gaze direction, though presenting only the eye region of faces at a larger size improved gaze averaging performance. The reverse correlation analysis revealed greater sampling areas for head rotation compared to gaze. We attribute these differences in averaging between gaze and head cues to poorer visual processing of faces in the periphery. The similarity between head and cone averaging are examined within the framework of a general mechanism for averaging of object rotation.

The Effect of Head Orientation on Perceived Gaze Direction: Revisiting Gibson and Pick (1963) and Cline (1967)

Two biases in perceived gaze direction have been observed when eye and head orientation are not aligned. An overshoot effect indicates that perceived gaze direction is shifted away from head orientation (i.e., a repulsive effect), whereas a towing effect indicates that perceived gaze direction falls in between head and eye orientation (i.e., an attraction effect). In the 60s, three influential papers have been published with respect to the effect of head orientation on perceived gaze direction (Gibson and Pick, 1963; Cline, 1967; Anstis et al., 1969). Throughout the years, the results of two of these (Gibson and Pick, 1963; Cline, 1967) have been interpreted differently by a number of authors. In this paper, we critically discuss potential sources of confusion that have led to differential interpretations of both studies. At first sight, the results of Cline (1967), despite having been a major topic of discussion, unambiguously seem to indicate a towing effect whereas Gibson and Pick’s (1963) results seem to be the most ambiguous, although they have never been questioned in the literature. To shed further light on this apparent inconsistency, we repeated the critical experiments reported in both studies. Our results indicate an overshoot effect in both studies.

The effects of simulated vision impairments on the cone of gaze

Detecting the gaze direction of others is critical for many social interactions. We explored factors that may make the perception of mutual gaze more difficult, including the degradation of the stimulus and simulated vision impairment. To what extent do these factors affect the complex assessment of mutual gaze? Using an interactive virtual head whose eye direction could be manipulated by the subject, we conducted two experiments to assess the effects of simulated vision impairments on mutual gaze. Healthy subjects had to demarcate the center and the edges of the cone of gaze-that is, the range of gaze directions that are accepted for mutual gaze. When vision was impaired by adding a semitransparent white contrast reduction mask to the display (Exp. 1), judgments became more variable and more influenced by the head direction (indicative of a compensation strategy). When refractive blur was added (Exp. 1), the gaze cone shrank from 12.9° (no blur) to 11.3° (3-diopter lens), which cannot be explained by a low-level process but might reflect a tightening of the criterion for mutual gaze as a response to the increased uncertainty. However, the overall effects of the impairments were relatively modest. Elderly subjects (Exp. 2) produced more variability but did not differ qualitatively from the younger subjects. In the face of artificial vision impairments, compensation mechanisms and criterion changes allow us to perform better in mutual gaze perception than would be predicted by a simple extrapolation from the losses in basic visual acuity and contrast sensitivity.

Differences in the Judged Direction of Gaze From Heads Imaged in 3-D versus 2-D

Observers viewed a model imaged on an LCD monitor in 3-D or 2-D as she gazed at points along a horizontally oriented meter stick from a distance of 80 cm. Her head was either straight or turned 20 degrees to the side, and for each head orientation, her gaze was straight, 10 degrees, or 20 degrees to the side, with her eyes individually open, both open, or both closed. For images in which both eyes were closed, the observers pointed along the same meter stick to where they judged her head to be pointed. When one or both eyes were open they judged where she appeared to be gazing. Gaze from the 2-D images agreed with previous studies. A comparison of the results from the 2-D versus 3-D images showed that the judgments were virtually identical for gaze from the straight versus turned head in all combinations of straight versus averted gaze, eyes individually open versus both open. The judgments were also virtually identical for head point. This suggests that 2-D studies that have used procedures similar to those described in this study may be applied to real world 3-D gaze perception.

Eye gaze and head orientation modulate the inhibition of return for faces

The present study used an inhibition of return (IOR) spatial cueing paradigm to examine how gaze direction and head orientation modulate attention capture for human faces. Target response time (RT) was measured after the presentation of a peripheral cue, which was either a face (with front-facing or averted gaze, in either frontal head view or averted head view) or a house (control). Participants fixated on a centered cross at all times and responded via button press to a peripheral target after a variable stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) from the stimulus cue. At the shortest SOA (150 ms), RTs were shorter for faces than houses, independent of an IOR response, suggesting a cue-based RT advantage elicited by faces. At the longest SOA (2,400 ms), a larger IOR magnitude was found for faces compared to houses. Both the cue-based RT advantage and later IOR responses were modulated by gaze-head congruency; these effects were strongest for frontal gaze faces in frontal head view, and for averted gaze faces in averted head view. Importantly, participants were not given any specific information regarding the stimuli, nor were they told the true purpose of the study. These findings indicate that the congruent combination of head and gaze direction influence the exogenous attention capture of faces during inhibition of return.

Perceiving where another person is looking: the integration of head and body information in estimating another person's gaze

The process through which an observer allocates his/her attention based on the attention of another person is known as joint attention. To be able to do this, the observer effectively has to compute where the other person is looking. It has been shown that observers integrate information from the head and the eyes to determine the gaze of another person. Most studies have documented that observers show a bias called the overshoot effect when eyes and head are misaligned. That is, when the head is not oriented straight to the observer, perceived gaze direction is sometimes shifted in the direction opposite to the head turn. The present study addresses whether body information is also used as a cue to compute perceived gaze direction. In Experiment 1, we observed a similar overshoot effect in both behavioral and saccadic responses when manipulating body orientation. In Experiment 2, we explored whether the overshoot effect was due to observers assuming that the eyes are oriented further than the head when head and body orientation are misaligned. We removed horizontal eye information by presenting the stimulus from a side view. Head orientation was now manipulated in a vertical direction and the overshoot effect was replicated. In summary, this study shows that body orientation is indeed used as a cue to determine where another person is looking.

The effect of central vision loss on perception of mutual gaze

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effects of central vision loss (CVL) on mutual gaze perception (knowing whether somebody else is looking at you), an important nonverbal visual cue in social interactions.

METHODS

Twenty-three persons with CVL (visual acuity 20/50 to 20/200), 16 with a bilateral central scotoma and 7 without, and 23 age-matched control subjects completed a gaze perception task and a brief questionnaire. They adjusted the eyes of a life-size virtual head on a monitor at a 1-m distance until they either appeared to be looking straight at them or were at the extreme left/right or up/down positions at which the eyes still appeared to be looking toward them (defining the range of mutual gaze in the horizontal and vertical planes).

RESULTS

The nonscotoma group did not differ from the control subjects in any gaze task measure. However, the gaze direction judgments of the scotoma group had significantly greater variability than those of the nonscotoma and control groups (p < 0.001). In addition, their mutual gaze range tended to be wider (p = 0.15), suggesting a more liberal judgment criterion. Contrast sensitivity was the strongest predictor of variability in gaze direction judgments followed by self-reported difficulties.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that mutual gaze perception is relatively robust to CVL. However, a follow-up study that simulates less-than-optimal viewing conditions of everyday social interactions is needed. The gaze perception task holds promise as a research tool for investigating the effects of vision impairment on mutual gaze judgments. Self-reported difficulty and contrast sensitivity were both independent predictors of gaze perception performance, suggesting that the task captured higher-order as well as low-level visual abilities.

Dual-route model of the effect of head orientation on perceived gaze direction

Previous studies on gaze perception have identified 2 opposing effects of head orientation on perceived gaze direction—1 repulsive and the other attractive. However, the relationship between these 2 effects has remained unclear. By using a gaze categorization task, the current study examined the effect of head orientation on the perceived direction of gaze in a whole-head condition and an eye-region condition. We found that the perceived direction of gaze was generally biased in the opposite direction to head orientation (a repulsive effect). Importantly, the magnitude of the repulsive effect was more pronounced in the eye-region condition than in the whole-head condition. Based on these findings, we developed a dual-route model, which proposes that the 2 opposing effects of head orientation occur through 2 distinct routes. In the framework of this dual-route model, we explain and reconcile the findings from previous studies, and provide a functional account of attractive and repulsive effects and their interaction.

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 judgment 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 judgments, 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.

The Effect of Head Turn and Illumination on the Perceived Direction of Gaze

Thirty observers judged the direction of monocular and binocular gaze from a model's LCD-imaged head when the head, gaze, and illumination were either straight or turned 20.6° to the side. The judged direction of binocular eye contact from a turned head was judged to go past the direction of the observer, while judged monocular gaze from the eye toward the observer followed that for binocular gaze. Although judged monocular gaze from the eye away from the observer also passed the observer, it did so by a smaller amount. The judged direction of binocular gaze in the same direction as the head turn was judged to pass the direction of the head turn. The judged direction of monocular gaze from the eye away from the observer was nearly true, but the judged direction of monocular gaze from the eye toward the observer was judged as closer to the observer than true. Illumination of the model's head from the side made the direction of both head turn and gaze appear to move away from the direction of the light source. These results are discussed in connection with angle k and the perceived direction of head turn.

Differentiating the differential rotation effect

As an observer views a picture from different viewing angles, objects in the picture appear to maintain their orientation relative to the observer. For instance, the eyes of a portrait appear to follow the observer as he or she views the image from different angles. We have explored this rotation effect, often called the Mona Lisa effect. We report three experiments that used portrait photographs to test variations of the Mona Lisa effect. The first experiment introduced picture displacements relative to the observer in directions beyond the horizontal plane. The Mona Lisa effect remained robust for vertical and/or diagonal observer displacements. The experiment also included conditions in which the portrait had averted gaze directions. An interaction between picture position relative to the observer and gaze direction was found. The second experiment followed up on very pronounced individual differences, suggesting that the Mona Lisa effect is even stronger than it should be for half of all observers (over-rotators). These individual differences do not correlate with any of the standard personality dimensions (Big Five) or with spatial intelligence. In the third experiment, we extended the experiment to virtual 3D heads using the same gaze directions and picture displacements as for the 2D portrait faces. Besides the picture displacements relative to the observer, we also added observer displacements relative to the picture. 3D pictures showed the Mona Lisa effect, but to a smaller extent than did 2D pictures.