The cued recognition task: dissociating the abrupt onset effect from the social and arrow cueing effect

Eye-Gaze direction triggers a more specific attentional orienting compared to arrows

Numerous studies have shown that eye-gaze and arrows automatically shift visuospatial attention. Nonetheless, it remains unclear whether the attentional shifts triggered by these two types of stimuli differ in some important aspects. It has been suggested that an important difference may reside in how people select objects in response to these two types of cues, eye-gaze eliciting a more specific attentional orienting than arrows. To assess this hypothesis, we examined whether the allocation of the attentional orienting triggered by eye-gaze and arrows is modulated by the presence and the distribution of reference objects (i.e., placeholders) on the scene. Following central cues, targets were presented either in an empty visual field or within one of six placeholders on each trial. In Experiment 2, placeholder-objects were grouped following the gestalt's law of proximity, whereas in Experiment 1, they were not perceptually grouped. Results showed that cueing one of the grouped placeholders spreads attention across the whole group of placeholder-objects when arrow cues were used, while it restricted attention to the specific cued placeholder when eye-gaze cues were used. No differences between the two types of cues were observed when placeholder-objects were not grouped within the cued hemifield, or no placeholders were displayed on the scene. These findings are consistent with the idea that socially relevant gaze cues encourage a more specific attentional orienting than arrow cues and provide new insight into the boundary conditions necessary to observe this dissociation.

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.

Investigating facilitatory versus inhibitory effects of dynamic social and non-social cues on attention in a realistic space

This study aimed to investigate the facilitatory versus inhibitory effects of dynamic non-predictive central cues presented in a realistic environment. Realistic human-avatars initiated eye contact and then dynamically looked to the left, right or centre of a table. A moving stick served as a non-social control cue and participants localised (Experiment 1) or discriminated (Experiment 2) a contextually relevant target (teapot/teacup). The cues movement took 500 ms and stimulus onset asynchronies (SOA, 150 ms/300 ms/500 ms/1000 ms) were measured from movement initiation. Similar cuing effects were seen for the social avatar and non-social stick cue across tasks. Results showed facilitatory processes without inhibition, though there was some variation by SOA and task. This is the first time facilitatory versus inhibitory processes have been directly investigated where eye contact is initiated prior to gaze shift. These dynamic stimuli allow a better understanding of how attention might be cued in more realistic environments.

Attentional bias to threat in the general population is contingent on target competition, not on attentional control settings

Dot-probe studies usually find an attentional bias towards threatening stimuli only in anxious participants. Here, we investigated under what conditions such a bias occurs in unselected samples. According to contingent-capture theory, an irrelevant cue only captures attention if it matches an attentional control setting. Therefore, we first tested the hypothesis that an attentional control setting tuned to threat must be activated in (non-anxious) individuals. In Experiment 1, we used a dot-probe task with a manipulation of attentional control settings ('threat' - set vs. control set). Surprisingly, we found an (anxiety-independent) attentional bias to angry faces that was not moderated by attentional control settings. Since we presented two stimuli (i.e., a target and a distractor) on the target screen in Experiment 1 (a necessity to realise the test of contingent capture), but most dot-probe studies only employ a single target, we conducted Experiment 2 to test the hypothesis that attentional bias in the general population is contingent on target competition. Participants performed a dot-probe task, involving presentation of a stand-alone target or a target competing with a distractor. We found an (anxiety-independent) attentional bias towards angry faces in the latter but not the former condition. This suggests that attentional bias towards angry faces in unselected samples is not contingent on attentional control settings but on target competition.