EXPRESS: The interplay between gaze cueing and facial trait impressions

2021 ◽  
pp. 174702182110077
Author(s):  
Giulia Mattavelli ◽  
Daniele Romano ◽  
Andrew Young ◽  
Paola Ricciardelli

The gaze cueing effect involves the rapid orientation of attention to follow the gaze direction of another person. Previous studies reported reciprocal influences between social variables and the gaze cueing effect, with modulation of gaze cueing by social features of face stimuli and modulation of the observer’s social judgments from the validity of the gaze cues themselves. However, it remains unclear which social dimensions can affect - and be affected by - gaze cues. We used computer-averaged prototype face-like images with high and low levels of perceived trustworthiness and dominance to investigate the impact of these two fundamental social impression dimensions on the gaze cueing effect. Moreover, by varying the proportions of valid and invalid gaze cues across three experiments, we assessed whether gaze cueing influences observers' impressions of dominance and trustworthiness through incidental learning. Bayesian statistical analyses provided clear evidence that the gaze cueing effect was not modulated by facial social trait impressions (Experiments 1-3). On the other hand, there was uncertain evidence of incidental learning of social evaluations following the gaze cueing task. A decrease in perceived trustworthiness for non-cooperative low dominance faces (Experiment 2) and an increase in dominance ratings for faces whose gaze behaviour contradicted expectations (Experiment 3) appeared, but further research is needed to clarify these effects. Thus, this study confirms that attentional shifts triggered by gaze direction involve a robust and relatively automatic process, which could nonetheless influence social impressions depending on perceived traits and the gaze behaviour of faces providing the cues.

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zelin Chen ◽  
Sarah D. McCrackin ◽  
Alicia Morgan ◽  
Roxane J. Itier

The gaze cueing effect is characterized by faster attentional orienting to a gazed-at than a non-gazed-at target. This effect is often enhanced when the gazing face bears an emotional expression, though this finding is modulated by a number of factors. Here, we tested whether the type of task performed might be one such modulating factor. Target localization and target discrimination tasks are the two most commonly used gaze cueing tasks, and they arguably differ in cognitive resources, which could impact how emotional expression and gaze cues are integrated to orient attention. In a within-subjects design, participants performed both target localization and discrimination gaze cueing tasks with neutral, happy, and fearful faces. The gaze cueing effect for neutral faces was greatly reduced in the discrimination task relative to the localization task, and the emotional enhancement of the gaze cueing effect was only present in the localization task and only when this task was performed first. These results suggest that cognitive resources are needed for gaze cueing and for the integration of emotional expressions and gaze cues. We propose that a shift toward local processing may be the mechanism by which the discrimination task interferes with the emotional modulation of gaze cueing. The results support the idea that gaze cueing can be greatly modulated by top-down influences and cognitive resources and thus taps into endogenous attention. Results are discussed within the context of the recently proposed EyeTune model of social attention.


2015 ◽  
Vol 47 (11) ◽  
pp. 1309
Author(s):  
Meichen ZHANG ◽  
Ping WEI ◽  
Qin ZHANG

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix Suessenbach ◽  
Felix D. Schönbrodt

Gaze Cueing (i.e.,the shifting of person B’s attention by following person A’s gaze) is closely linked with human interaction and learning. To make the most of this connection, researchers need to investigate possible moderators enhancing or reducing the extent of this attentional shifting. In this study we used a gaze cueing paradigm to demonstrate that the perceived trustworthiness of a cueing person constitutes such a moderator for female participants. Our results show a significant interaction between perceived trustworthiness and the response time trade-off between valid and invalid gaze cues (gaze cueing effect), as manifested in greater following of a person’s gaze if this person was trustworthy as opposed to the following of an untrustworthy person’s gaze. An additional exploratory analysis showed potentially moderating influences of trait-anxiety on this interaction (p= .057). The affective background of the experiment (i.e., using positive or negative target stimuli) had no influence.


2018 ◽  
Vol 131 ◽  
pp. S130
Author(s):  
G.Ya. Menshikova ◽  
E.G. Luniakova ◽  
A.I. Kovalev

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 1522-1531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuo Zhao ◽  
Shota Uono ◽  
Sayaka Yoshimura ◽  
Motomi Toichi

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Douglas D. Potter ◽  
Simon Webster

Gaze cueing was assessed in children with autism and in typically developing children, using a computer-controlled “live” face-to-face procedure. Sensitivity to gaze direction was assessed using a Posner cuing paradigm. Both static and dynamic directional gaze cues were used. Consistent with many previous studies, using photographic and cartoon faces, gaze cueing was present in children with autism and was not developmentally delayed. However, in the same children, gaze cueing was abolished when a mouth movement occurred at the same time as the gaze cue. In contrast, typical children were able to use gaze cues in all conditions. The findings indicate that gaze cueing develops successfully in some children with autism but that their attention is disrupted by speech utterances. Their ability to learn to read nonverbal emotional and intentional signals provided by the eyes may therefore be significantly impaired. This may indicate a problem with cross-modal attention control or an abnormal sensitivity to peripheral motion in general or the mouth region in particular.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. 1977
Author(s):  
Kate T McKay ◽  
Sarah A Grainger ◽  
Sarah P Coundouris ◽  
Daniel P Skorich ◽  
Louise H Phillips ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document