Processing Mechanisms Of Eye-Head Cues And Eye-Finger-Pointing Cues In The Dot-Perspective Task

<p><b>Calculating others’ visual perspective automatically is a pivotal ability in human’s social communications. In the dot-perspective task, the ability is shown as a consistency effect: adults respond more slowly to judge the number of discs that they can see when a computer-generated avatar sees fewer discs. The implicit mentalising account attributes the effect to relatively automatic tracking of others’ visual perspectives. However, the submentalising account attributes the effect to domain-general attentional orienting. Accordingly, three studies were conducted to elucidate the ongoing implicit mentalising vs. submentalising debate.</b></p> <p>Study 1 (comprising Experiments 1 and 2) replicated the consistency effect either when real-human-face or spatial layout of discs was considered. Study 2 (comprising of Experiments 3 and 4) dissociated two accounts by manipulating real human’s facial cues. In Experiment 3, using a new visual access manipulation (i.e., a black rectangle placed on an agent’s eyes for rendering an invisible condition), a consistency effect was induced for eyes-opened but not eyes-covered faces with head direction, suggesting implicit mentalising. Experiment 4 firstly compared implicit mentalising (via consistency effect in the dot-perspective task) with attentional orienting (via a cue-validity effect in Posner task) when manipulating eye-head cues (head-front-gaze-averted versus head-turned-gaze-maintained). Neither effect was modulated by eye-head-related directional cue, but the cue-validity effect’s elicitation seemed to be related to the directional cue’s dynamic property. Overall, implicit mentalising as revealed in consistency effect cannot be purely reduced to attentional-orienting-related submentalising processes.</p> <p>Study 3 (comprising of Experiments 5 to 7) further clarified the debate by considering the agent’s different body cues. Experiment 5 extended the findings of Experiment 4 by generating a new eye-head-cue comparison (head-front-gaze-averted vs. head-turned-gaze-averted). Directional cue modulated cue-validity effect but not consistency effect, favouring Study 2’s conclusion. Experiment 6 adopted a new body-cue-manipulation (gaze-averted vs. finger-pointing). Both cue-validity and consistency effects were elicited for finger-pointing but not gaze-averted agents, supporting submentalising. Experiment 7 combined finger-pointing with visual access’s manipulation (eyes-opened vs. eyes-covered) on the dot-perspective task. Visual access did not modulate the consistency effect when finger-pointing was simultaneously displayed, supporting submentalising. Altogether, gaze aversion cues appear to play a dominant role in moderating implicit mentalising on the dot-perspective task, but the process may be interfered by the easily-discriminable finger-pointing cues via an attentional orienting mechanism.</p>

PROCESSING MECHANISMS OF EYE-HEAD CUES AND EYE-FINGER-POINTING CUES IN THE DOT-PERSPECTIVE TASK

<p><b>Calculating others’ visual perspective automatically is a pivotal ability in human’s social communications. In the dot-perspective task, the ability is shown as a consistency effect: adults respond more slowly to judge the number of discs that they can see when a computer-generated avatar sees fewer discs. The implicit mentalising account attributes the effect to relatively automatic tracking of others’ visual perspectives. However, the submentalising account attributes the effect to domain-general attentional orienting. Accordingly, three studies were conducted to elucidate the ongoing implicit mentalising vs. submentalising debate.</b></p> <p>Study 1 (comprising Experiments 1 and 2) replicated the consistency effect either when real-human-face or spatial layout of discs was considered. Study 2 (comprising of Experiments 3 and 4) dissociated two accounts by manipulating real human’s facial cues. In Experiment 3, using a new visual access manipulation (i.e., a black rectangle placed on an agent’s eyes for rendering an invisible condition), a consistency effect was induced for eyes-opened but not eyes-covered faces with head direction, suggesting implicit mentalising. Experiment 4 firstly compared implicit mentalising (via consistency effect in the dot-perspective task) with attentional orienting (via a cue-validity effect in Posner task) when manipulating eye-head cues (head-front-gaze-averted versus head-turned-gaze-maintained). Neither effect was modulated by eye-head-related directional cue, but the cue-validity effect’s elicitation seemed to be related to the directional cue’s dynamic property. Overall, implicit mentalising as revealed in consistency effect cannot be purely reduced to attentional-orienting-related submentalising processes.</p> <p>Study 3 (comprising of Experiments 5 to 7) further clarified the debate by considering the agent’s different body cues. Experiment 5 extended the findings of Experiment 4 by generating a new eye-head-cue comparison (head-front-gaze-averted vs. head-turned-gaze-averted). Directional cue modulated cue-validity effect but not consistency effect, favouring Study 2’s conclusion. Experiment 6 adopted a new body-cue-manipulation (gaze-averted vs. finger-pointing). Both cue-validity and consistency effects were elicited for finger-pointing but not gaze-averted agents, supporting submentalising. Experiment 7 combined finger-pointing with visual access’s manipulation (eyes-opened vs. eyes-covered) on the dot-perspective task. Visual access did not modulate the consistency effect when finger-pointing was simultaneously displayed, supporting submentalising. Altogether, gaze aversion cues appear to play a dominant role in moderating implicit mentalising on the dot-perspective task, but the process may be interfered by the easily-discriminable finger-pointing cues via an attentional orienting mechanism.</p>

PROCESSING MECHANISMS OF EYE-HEAD CUES AND EYE-FINGER-POINTING CUES IN THE DOT-PERSPECTIVE TASK

<p><b>Calculating others’ visual perspective automatically is a pivotal ability in human’s social communications. In the dot-perspective task, the ability is shown as a consistency effect: adults respond more slowly to judge the number of discs that they can see when a computer-generated avatar sees fewer discs. The implicit mentalising account attributes the effect to relatively automatic tracking of others’ visual perspectives. However, the submentalising account attributes the effect to domain-general attentional orienting. Accordingly, three studies were conducted to elucidate the ongoing implicit mentalising vs. submentalising debate.</b></p> <p>Study 1 (comprising Experiments 1 and 2) replicated the consistency effect either when real-human-face or spatial layout of discs was considered. Study 2 (comprising of Experiments 3 and 4) dissociated two accounts by manipulating real human’s facial cues. In Experiment 3, using a new visual access manipulation (i.e., a black rectangle placed on an agent’s eyes for rendering an invisible condition), a consistency effect was induced for eyes-opened but not eyes-covered faces with head direction, suggesting implicit mentalising. Experiment 4 firstly compared implicit mentalising (via consistency effect in the dot-perspective task) with attentional orienting (via a cue-validity effect in Posner task) when manipulating eye-head cues (head-front-gaze-averted versus head-turned-gaze-maintained). Neither effect was modulated by eye-head-related directional cue, but the cue-validity effect’s elicitation seemed to be related to the directional cue’s dynamic property. Overall, implicit mentalising as revealed in consistency effect cannot be purely reduced to attentional-orienting-related submentalising processes.</p> <p>Study 3 (comprising of Experiments 5 to 7) further clarified the debate by considering the agent’s different body cues. Experiment 5 extended the findings of Experiment 4 by generating a new eye-head-cue comparison (head-front-gaze-averted vs. head-turned-gaze-averted). Directional cue modulated cue-validity effect but not consistency effect, favouring Study 2’s conclusion. Experiment 6 adopted a new body-cue-manipulation (gaze-averted vs. finger-pointing). Both cue-validity and consistency effects were elicited for finger-pointing but not gaze-averted agents, supporting submentalising. Experiment 7 combined finger-pointing with visual access’s manipulation (eyes-opened vs. eyes-covered) on the dot-perspective task. Visual access did not modulate the consistency effect when finger-pointing was simultaneously displayed, supporting submentalising. Altogether, gaze aversion cues appear to play a dominant role in moderating implicit mentalising on the dot-perspective task, but the process may be interfered by the easily-discriminable finger-pointing cues via an attentional orienting mechanism.</p>

Investigating Object Files in Spatial Cueing

In spatial cueing, cues presented at target position (valid condition) can capture visual attention and facilitate responses to the target relative to cues presented away from target position (invalid condition). If cues and targets carry different features, the necessary updating of the object representation from the cue to the target display sometimes counteracts and even reverses facilitation in valid conditions, resulting in an inverted validity effect. Previous studies reached partly divergent conclusions regarding the conditions under which object-file updating occurs, and little is known about the exact nature of the processes involved. Object-file updating has so far been investigated by manipulating cue–target similarities in task-relevant target features, but other features that change between the cue and target displays might also contribute to object-file updating. This study examined the conditions under which object-file updating could counteract validity effects by systematically varying task-relevant (color), response-relevant (identity), and response-irrelevant (orientation) features between cue and target displays. The results illustrate that object-file updating is largely restricted to task-relevant features. In addition, the difficulty of the search task affects the degree to which object-file updating costs interact with spatial cueing.

A Form of TV News as Factor of Achieving Validity Effect

The problem of validity of news is a topical matter. The article is an attempt to comprehend the phenomenon of validity in TV news programs. According to the author’s hypothesis, the form in which the news is delivered influences the validity effect and may be considered a variable factor. The study is based on a normative model showing dependency of validity on the set of elements in the form of a news item. A frequency analysis aimed at determining available forms of news broadcasting involved 1 600 news items of five news channels (Russia24, Moscow24, OTR, Mir and Euronews) in the period of 01.02.2020-10.02.2020. The results show that although the newsrooms use different combinations of ways and elements in order to achieve validity effect, there are some common and most often used narrative techniques. Besides, modern news programs, regardless the editorial policy, lack the author’s point of view and emotional coloring.

Assessing the Imagination Scale’s Nomological Validity: Effect of Hedonic versus Utilitarian Product Types and Abstract versus Concrete Advertising Execution

This research builds on a study of advertisement-evoked imagination scale developed by Dewi and Ang (2015). The imagination scale contains four types of imagination, that is, benefit-anticipatory imagination, emotional-bonding imagina­tion, symbolic imagination, and mind-wandering imagination.In this paper, the pro­po­sed constructs of the imagination types are related to other relevant constructs exis­ting in marketing literature.The purpose of this research is twofold. First, it establishes the nomological validity of the imagination measures by placing it in the context of hedonic-utilitarian concepts proposed by Holbrook and Hirschman (1983). Second, the research empirically studies the effect of situational factor, that is concrete versus abstract advertisement execution, on imagination elicitation. The study is an experiment which employs mixed factor design involving eight sub-groups of participants. Results of the research demons­trate the nomological validity of the imagination scale where the four types of imagination were elicited in response to hedonic/utilitarian product depicted in the ad and situational factors (that is, abstract versus concrete ads).

An advantage for targets located horizontally to the cued location

Over the years a number of researchers have reported enhanced performance of targets located horizontally to a cued location relative to those located vertically. However, many of these reports could stem from a known meridian asymmetry in which stimuli on the horizontal meridian show a performance advantage relative to those on the vertical meridian. Here we show a horizontal advantage for target and cue locations that reside outside the zone of asymmetry; that is, targets that appear horizontal to the cue, but above or below the horizontal meridian, are more accurate than those that appear vertical to the cue, but again either above or below the horizontal meridian (Experiments 1 and 4). This advantage does not extend to non-symmetrically located targets in the opposite hemifield (Experiment 2), nor horizontally located targets within the same hemifield (Experiment 3). These data raise the possibility that display designs in which the target and cue locations are positioned symmetrically across the vertical midline may be underestimating the cue validity effect.