Does gaze direction affect accuracy?

Eye Contact and Fear of Being Laughed at in a Gaze Discrimination Task

Current approaches conceptualize gelotophobia as a personality trait characterized by a disproportionate fear of being laughed at by others. Consistently with this perspective, gelotophobes are also described as neurotic and introverted and as having a paranoid tendency to anticipate derision and mockery situations. Although research on gelotophobia has significantly progressed over the past two decades, no evidence exists concerning the potential effects of gelotophobia in reaction to eye contact. Previous research has pointed to difficulties in discriminating gaze direction as the basis of possible misinterpretations of others' intentions or mental states. The aim of the present research was to examine whether gelotophobia predisposition modulates the effects of eye contact (i.e., gaze discrimination) when processing faces portraying several emotional expressions. In two different experiments, participants performed an experimental gaze discrimination task in which they responded, as quickly and accurately as possible, to the eyes' directions on faces displaying either a happy, angry, fear, neutral, or sad emotional expression. In particular, we expected trait-gelotophobia to modulate the eye contact effect, showing specific group differences in the happiness condition. The results of Study 1 (N = 40) indicated that gelotophobes made more errors than non-gelotophobes did in the gaze discrimination task. In contrast to our initial hypothesis, the happiness expression did not have any special role in the observed differences between individuals with high vs. low trait-gelotophobia. In Study 2 (N = 40), we replicated the pattern of data concerning gaze discrimination ability, even after controlling for individuals' scores on social anxiety. Furthermore, in our second experiment, we found that gelotophobes did not exhibit any problem with identifying others' emotions, or a general incorrect attribution of affective features, such as valence, intensity, or arousal. Therefore, this bias in processing gaze might be related to the global processes of social cognition. Further research is needed to explore how eye contact relates to the fear of being laughed at.

Developmentally distinct gaze processing systems: luminance versus geometric cues

Two experiments examined how the different cues to gaze direction contribute to children's abilities to follow and make explicit judgements about gaze. In each study participants were shown blurred images of faces containing only luminance cues to gaze direction, line-drawn images containing only fine-grained detail supporting a geometric analysis of gaze direction, and unmanipulated images. In Experiment 1a, 2- and 3-year olds showed gaze-cued orienting of attention in response to unmanipulated and blurred faces, but not line-drawn faces. Adult participants showed cueing effects to line drawn faces as well as the other two types of face cue in Experiment 1b. In Experiment 2, 2-year-olds were poor at judging towards which of four objects blurred and line-drawn faces were gazing, whereas 3- and 4-year-olds performed above chance with these faces. All age groups performed above chance with unmanipulated images. These findings are consistent with an early-developing luminance-based mechanism, which supports gaze following, but which cannot initially support explicit judgements, and a later-developing mechanism, additionally using geometric cues in the eye, which supports explicit judgements about gaze.

Reflexive orienting to gaze is not luminance dependent

In the investigation of reflexive orienting to cues, two major theories have emerged: One proposes that transients created by the cue trigger attentional shifts, whereas the other argues that object changes are responsible for instigating orienting. In the present study, we examined whether luminance transients produced by the cue can generate reflexive orienting to gaze. Using a temporal order judgment paradigm under luminant or subjectively equiluminant conditions, participants judged which of two peripheral targets onset first. An uninformative gaze cue served to reflexively shift attention toward one object location, thereby temporally prioritizing the target presented there. The results revealed that attention was successfully shifted toward the cued object, as was evidenced by the participants' selecting the cued object as appearing first significantly more often than the uncued object, even when the two onset simultaneously. Critically, the results were comparable across luminance conditions. Our findings reveal that luminance transients are not necessary for triggering orienting to gaze cues. We suggest that the orienting observed here can be better explained via an object-based hypothesis whereby object changes, not transients, trigger reflexive orienting.

Nonattentional effects of nonpredictive central cues

Recent evidence suggests that nonpredictive gaze, hand, arrow, and peripheral cues elicit shifts of reflexive attention. In the present article, we address whether these cues also influence the decision criterion in a go/no-go task. Nonpredictive central gaze and hand cues pointed toward or away from the location of an imminent target. Responses to the targets were faster, and false alarm errors were more frequent, when cues pointed toward the target than when they were directed away from it. Although a similar pattern was observed with nonpredictive arrow cues, it was not seen with nonpredictive peripheral cues. These results suggest that nonpredictive central cues not only affect attention, but also bias decision processes.

Testing whether gaze cues and arrow cues produce reflexive or volitional shifts of attention

It has been suggested that two types of uninformative central cues produce reflexive orienting: gaze and arrow cues. Using the criterion that voluntary shifts of attention facilitate both response speed and perceptual accuracy, whereas reflexive shifts of attention facilitate only response speed (Prinzmetal, McCool, & Park, 2005), we tested whether these cues produce reflexive or volitional shifts of attention. A cued letter discrimination task was used with both gaze (Experiments 1A and 1B) and arrow (Experiments 2A and 2B) cues, in which participants responded to the identity of the target letter. In the response time (respond speed) tasks, participants were asked to respond as quickly as possible to the target; in the accuracy (perceptual quality) tasks, participants were asked to respond as accurately as possible. For both cue types, compatible cues were found to facilitate response speed but not perceptual accuracy, indicating that both gaze and arrow cues generate reflexive shifts in attention.