What gaze adds to arrows: Changes in attentional response to gaze versus arrows in childhood and adolescence

Unmasking social attention: The key distinction between social and non-social attention emerges in disengagement, not engagement

The debate surrounding whether social and non-social attention share the same mechanism has been contentious. While prior studies predominantly focused on engagement, we examined the potential disparity between social and non-social attention from both perspectives of engagement and disengagement, respectively. We developed a two-stage attention-shifting paradigm to capture both attention engagement and disengagement. Combining results from five eye-tracking experiments, we supported that the disengagement of social attention markedly outpaces that of non-social attention, while no significant discrepancy emerges in engagement. We uncovered that the faster disengagement of social attention came from its social nature by eliminating alternative explanations including broader fixation distribution width, reduced directional salience in the peripheral visual field, decreased cue-object categorical consistency, reduced perceived validity, and faster processing time. Our study supported that the distinction between social and non-social attention is rooted in attention disengagement, not engagement.

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.

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.

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

Arrows and gaze stimuli lead to opposite spatial congruency effects. While standard congruency effects are observed for arrows (faster responses for congruent conditions), responses are faster when eye-gaze stimuli are presented on the opposite side of the gazed-at location (incongruent trials), leading to a reversed congruency effect (RCE). Here, we explored the effects of implicit vs. explicit processing of arrows and eye-gaze direction. Participants were required to identify the direction (explicit task) or the colour (implicit task) of left or right looking/pointing gaze or arrows, presented to either the left or right of the fixation point. When participants responded to the direction of stimuli, standard congruency effects for arrows and RCE for eye-gaze stimuli were observed. However, when participants responded to the colour of stimuli, no congruency effects were observed. These results suggest that it is necessary to explicitly pay attention to the direction of eye-gaze and arrows for the congruency effect to occur. The same pattern of data was observed when participants responded either manually or verbally, demonstrating that manual motor components are not responsible for the results observed. These findings are not consistent with some hypotheses previously proposed to explain the RCE observed with eye-gaze stimuli and, therefore, call for an alternative plausible hypothesis.

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.

Integration of Facial Expression and Gaze Direction in Individuals with a High Level of Autistic Traits

Background. We investigated whether individuals with high levels of autistic traits integrate relevant communicative signals, such as facial expression, when decoding eye-gaze direction. Methods. Students with high vs. low scores on the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) performed a task in which they responded to the eye directions of faces, presented on the left or the right side of a screen, portraying different emotional expressions. Results. In both groups, the identification of gaze direction was faster when the eyes were directed towards the center of the scene. However, in the low AQ group, this effect was larger for happy faces than for neutral faces or faces showing other emotional expressions, whereas participants from high AQ group were not affected by emotional expressions. Conclusions. These results suggest that individuals with more autistic traits may not integrate multiple communicative signals based on their emotional value.