gaze cuing
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

27
(FIVE YEARS 5)

H-INDEX

10
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Gregory ◽  
Klaus Kessler

Previous research has demonstrated that older adults make limited use of social cues as compared to younger adults. This has been investigated by testing the influence of gaze cues on attentional processes, with findings showing significantly smaller gaze cuing effects for older than younger adults. Here we aimed to investigate whether this would also result in age related differences in the influence of gaze cues on working memory. We therefore tested the effects of gaze cues from realistic human avatars on working memory across two experiments using dynamic head turns and more subtle eye gaze movements. Results demonstrated that for both older and younger adults, gaze cues influenced working memory processes, though there were some important differences related to the nature of the cue. Overall, we provide important evidence that sharing attention benefits cognition across the lifespan.


2021 ◽  
pp. 174702182110130
Author(s):  
Francesca Capozzi ◽  
Andrew Paul Bayliss ◽  
Jelena Ristic

Groups of people offer abundant opportunities for social interactions. We used a two-phase task to investigate how social cue numerosity and social information about an individual affected attentional allocation in such multi-agent settings. The learning phase was a standard gaze-cuing procedure in which a stimulus face could be either uninformative or informative about the upcoming target. The test phase was a group-cuing procedure in which the stimulus faces from the learning phase were presented in groups of three. The target could either be cued by the group minority (i.e., one face) or majority (i.e., two faces) or by uninformative or informative stimulus faces. Results showed an effect of cue numerosity, whereby responses were faster to targets cued by the group majority than the group minority. However, responses to targets cued by informative identities included in the group minority were as fast as responses to targets cued by the group majority. Thus, previously learned social information about an individual was able to offset the general enhancement of cue numerosity, revealing a complex interplay between cue numerosity and social information in guiding attention in multi-agent settings.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takemasa Yokoyama ◽  
Yuji Takeda
Keyword(s):  

Heliyon ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. e01583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah D. McCrackin ◽  
Sarika K. Soomal ◽  
Payal Patel ◽  
Roxane J. Itier

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Kingstone ◽  
George V Kachkovski ◽  
Daniil Vasilyev ◽  
Michael Kuk ◽  
Timothy N. Welsh

Attention can be shifted in the direction that another person is looking, but the role played by an observer's mental attribution to the looker is controversial. And whether mental attribution to the looker is sufficient to trigger an attention shift is unknown. The current study introduces a novel paradigm to investigate this latter issue. An actor is presented on video turning his head to the left or right before a target appears, randomly, at the gazed-at or non-gazed at location. Time to detect the target is measured. The standard finding is that target detection is more efficient at the gazed-at than the nongazed-at location, indicating that attention is shifted to the gazed-at location. Critically, in the current study, an actor is wearing two identical masks -- one covering his face and the other the back of his head. Thus, after the head turn, participants are presented with the profile of two faces, one looking left and one looking right. For a gaze cuing effect to emerge, participants must attribute a mental state to the actor -- as looking through one mask and not the other. Over the course of four experiments we report that when mental attribution is necessary, a shift in social attention does not occur (i.e., mental attribution is not sufficient to produce a social attention effect); and when mental attribution is not necessary, a shift in social attention does occur. Thus, mental attribution is neither sufficient nor necessary for the occurrence of an involuntary shift in social attention. The present findings constrain future models of social attention that wish to link gaze cuing to mental attribution.


2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 768-800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah D. McCrackin ◽  
Roxane J. Itier

2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 543-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Ciardo ◽  
Paola Ricciardelli ◽  
Cristina Iani

Recent findings suggested that the orienting of attention towards gazed at locations (i.e., the gaze cueing effect) could result from the conflict emerging in incongruent trials between the spatial information conveyed by gaze direction and the target spatial position. In two experiments, we assessed this hypothesis by investigating whether this effect is influenced by the same trial-by-trial modulations that are reported in a spatial conflict task, i.e., the Simon task. In Experiment 1, we compared the trial-by-trial modulations emerging in the Simon task with those emerging in a gaze cueing task, while in Experiment 2, we compared gaze and arrows cues. Trial-by-trial modulations were evident in both tasks. In the Simon task, correspondence sequence affected both corresponding and noncorresponding responses, this resulting in a larger Simon effect when the preceding trial was corresponding and an absent effect when the preceding trial was noncorresponding. Differently, in the gaze cueing task, congruence sequence affected only congruent responses with faster responses when the preceding trial was congruent compared to when it was incongruent, resulting in a larger gaze cuing effect when the preceding trial was congruent. Same results were evident with nonpredictive arrow cues. These findings speak against a spatial conflict account.


2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (10) ◽  
pp. 966
Author(s):  
Francesca Capozzi ◽  
Andrew Bayliss ◽  
Jelena Ristic
Keyword(s):  

2017 ◽  
Vol 116 ◽  
pp. 47-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pauline M. Insch ◽  
Gillian Slessor ◽  
Jill Warrington ◽  
Louise H. Phillips

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document