In the present study, we examined the effects of the other’s triadic attention to objects on visual search performances in chimpanzees. We found the search-asymmetry-like effect of the other’s attentional state; the chimpanzees searched a target object not attended by the other individual more efficiently than that attended (Experiment 1). Additional experiments explored the possibility that the other individual “holding an object but not looking at it” led to expectancy violation (Experiment 2) or the role of nonsocial cues such as the proximity relation between the head and the object (Experiment 3). Still, these accounts alone did not explain this effect. It was also shown that the other’s attentional state affected the chimpanzees’ performances more readily as the interference effect than the facilitation effect (Experiment 4). Furthermore, the same effect was observed in the visual search for the gaze (head direction) of others (Experiment 5). We obtained the same results using photographs of chimpanzees (Experiment 6). Contrary to the chimpanzees, humans detected the object to which attention was directed more efficiently than vice versa (Experiment 7). The present results may reflect species differences between chimpanzees and humans in processing triadic social attention.
BardK. A.Myowa-YamakoshiM.TomonagaM.TanakaM.CostallA.MatsuzawaT. (2005). Group differences in the mutual gaze of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Developmental Psychology, 41, 616–624. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.616.
BindemannM.BurtonA. M.LangtonS. R. H.SchweinbergerS. R.DohertyM. J. (2007). The control of attention to faces. Journal of Vision, 7, 15. https://doi.org/10.1167/7.10.15.
5.
BiroD.SousaC.MatsuzawaT. (2006). Ontogeny and cultural propagation of tool use by wild chimpanzees at Bossou, Guinea: Case studies in nut cracking and leaf folding. In MatsuzawaT.TomonagaM.TanakaM. (Eds.), Cognitive development in chimpanzees (pp. 476–508). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/4-431-30248-4_28.
6.
BiroS.LeslieA. M. (2007). Infants’ perception of goal-directed actions: Development through cue-based bootstrapping. Developmental Science, 10, 379–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00544.x.
DahlC. D.RaschM. J.TomonagaM.AdachiI. (2013). The face inversion effect in nonhuman primates revisited—An investigation in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Scientific Reports, 3, 2504. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep02504.
9.
DowningC. J. (1988). Expectancy and visual-spatial attention: Effects on perceptual quality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 188–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.14.2.188.
EglyR.DriverJ.RafalR. D. (1994). Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.123.2.161.
12.
EmeryN. J.LorinczE. N.PerrettD. I.OramM. W.BakerC. I. (1997). Gaze following and joint attention in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 111, 286–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.111.3.286.
13.
FarroniT.CsibraG.SimionF.JohnsonM. H. (2002). Eye contact detection in humans from birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 9602–9605. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.152159999.
14.
FlavellJ. C.OverH.VestnerT.CookR.TipperS. P.SteinbornM. B. (2022). Rapid detection of social interactions is the result of domain general attentional processes. PLoS One, 17, e0258832. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258832.
15.
FriesenC. K.KingstoneA. (1998). The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 490–495. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208827.
16.
FrischenA.BaylissA. P.TipperS. P. (2007). Gaze cueing of attention: Visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 694–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.694.
17.
GaoJ.KawakamiF.TomonagaM. (2020). Body perception in chimpanzees and humans: The expert effect. Scientific Reports, 10, 7148. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63876-x.
GaoJ.TomonagaM. (2020a). Body perception in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): The effect of body structure changes. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 134, 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000214.
20.
GaoJ.TomonagaM. (2020b). How chimpanzees and children perceive other species’ bodies: Comparing the expert effect. Developmental Science, 23, e12975. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12975.
21.
GoodallJ. (1986). The chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of behavior. Belknap Press.
22.
GreenC.HummelJ. E. (2006). Familiar interacting object pairs are perceptually grouped. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1107–1119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.5.1107.
23.
HandyT. C.KingstoneA.MangunG. R. (1996). Spatial distribution of visual attention: Perceptual sensitivity and response latency. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 613–627. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213094.
24.
HermensF. (2017). The effects of social and symbolic cues on visual search: Cue shape trumps biological relevance. Psihologija, 50, 117–140. https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI161005003H.
25.
HirataS.CelliM. L. (2003). Role of mothers in the acquisition of tool-use behaviours by captive infant chimpanzees. Animal Cognition, 6, 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-003-0187-6.
26.
HomaD.HaverB.SchwartzT. (1976). Perceptibility of schematic face stimuli: Evidence for a perceptual Gestalt. Memory & Cognition, 4, 176–185. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213162.
27.
HopperL. M.GulliR. A.HowardL. H.KanoF.KrupenyeC.RyanA. M.PauknerA. (2021). The application of noninvasive, restraint-free eye-tracking methods for use with nonhuman primates. Behavior Research Methods, 53, 1003–1030. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01465-6.
JohnsonC. M.Karin-D'ArcyM. R. (2006). Social attention in nonhuman primates: A behavioral review. Aquatic Mammals, 32, 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.32.4.2006.423.
30.
KanoF.CallJ. (2014). Great apes generate goal-based action predictions: An eye-tracking study. Psychological Science, 25, 1691–1698. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614536402.
31.
KanoF.HirataS. (2015). Great apes make anticipatory looks based on long-term memory of single events. Current Biology, 25, 2513–2517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.004.
32.
KanoF.TomonagaM. (2009). How chimpanzees look at pictures: A comparative eye-tracking study. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276, 1949–1955. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1811.
33.
KanoF.TomonagaM. (2011). Species difference in the timing of gaze movement between chimpanzees and humans. Animal Cognition, 14, 879–892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-011-0422-5.
34.
KosugiD.MuraiC.TomonagaM.TanakaM.IsihidaK.ItakuraS. (2003). Relationship between causal understanding of movements of objects and social referencing: Direct comparisons between chimpanzee and human infants. In TomonagaM.TanakaM.MatsuzawaT. (Eds.), Cognitive and behavioral development in chimpanzees: A comparative approach (pp. 232–242). Kyoto University Press. (Japanese text only).
35.
KoyasuH.KikusuiT.TakagiS.NagasawaM. (2020). The gaze communications between dogs/cats and humans: Recent research review and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 613512, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.613512.
36.
KravitzD. J.BehrmannM. (2008). The space of an object: Object attention alters the spatial gradient in the surround. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 298–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.2.298.
37.
KuhnG.PaganoA.MaaniS.BunceD. (2015). Age-related decline in the reflexive component of overt gaze following. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1073–1081. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.975257.
38.
KuhnG.TipplesJ. (2011). Increased gaze following for fearful faces. It depends on what you’re looking for!. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 89–95. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-010-0033-1.
39.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13.
40.
LangtonS. R.BruceV. (1999). Reflexive visual orienting in response to the social attention of others. Visual Cognition, 6, 541–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/135062899394939.
41.
LangtonS. R. H.O’DonnellC.RibyD. M.BallantyneC. J. (2006). Gaze cues influence the allocation of attention in natural scene viewing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 2056–2064. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210600917884.
ManyPrimates (2019b). Collaborative open science as a way to reproducibility and new insights in primate cognition research. Japanese Psychological Review, 62, 205–220. https://doi.org/10.24602/sjpr.62.3_205.
44.
MatsunoT. (2021). Visual body perception in primates: From individual to social dyad. In J. R. Anderson, & H. Kuroshima (Eds.), Comparative cognition: Commonalities and diversity (pp. 83–103). Singapore: Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2028-7_6.
45.
MatsuzawaT. (2006). Sociocognitive development in chimpanzees: A synthesis of laboratory work and fieldwork. In MatsuzawaT.TomonagaM.TanakaM. (Eds.), Cognitive development in chimpanzees (pp. 3–33). Springer.
46.
MatsuzawaT.TomonagaM.TanakaM. (Eds.). (2006). Cognitive development in chimpanzees. Springer.
47.
MooreC.DunhamP. J. (Eds.). (1995). Joint attention: Its origins and role in development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
48.
MüllerH. J.RabbittP. M. (1989). Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: Time course of activation and resistance to interruption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.15.2.315.
49.
Myowa-YamakoshiM.ScolaC.HirataS. (2012). Humans and chimpanzees attend differently to goal-directed actions. Nature Communications, 3, 693. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1695.
50.
Myowa-YamakoshiM.TomonagaM. (2001). Perceiving eye gaze in an infant gibbon (Hylobates agilis). Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 44, 24–30.
51.
Myowa-YamakoshiM.TomonagaM.TanakaM.MatsuzawaT. (2003). Preference for human direct gaze in infant chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Cognition, 89, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00071-4.
52.
Myowa-YamakoshiM.YoshidaC.HirataS.KendalR. L. (2015). Humans but not chimpanzees vary face-scanning patterns depending on contexts during action observation. PLoS One, 10, e0139989. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139989.
53.
NishidaT.CorpN.HamaiM.HasegawaT.Hiraiwa-HasegawaM.HosakaK.HuntK. D.ItohN.KawanakaK.Matsumoto-OdaA.MitaniJ. C.NakamuraM.NorikoshiK.SakamakiT.TurnerL.UeharaS.ZammaK. (2003). Demography, female life history, and reproductive profiles among the chimpanzees of Mahale. American Journal of Primatology, 59, 99–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.10068.
54.
OkamotoS.TanakaM.TomonagaM. (2004). Looking back: The “representational mechanism” of joint attention in an infant chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Japanese Psychological Research, 46, 236–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5584.2004.00255.x.
55.
OkamotoS.TomonagaM.IshiiK.KawaiN.TanakaM.MatsuzawaT. (2002). An infant chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) follows human gaze. Animal Cognition, 5, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-002-0133-z.
56.
PackA. A.HermanL. M. (2006). Dolphin social cognition and joint attention: Our current understanding. Aquatic Mammals, 32, 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.32.4.2006.443.
PapeoL.AbassiE. (2019). Seeing social events: The visual specialization for dyadic human–human interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45, 877–888. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000646.
ParrL. A.DoveT.HopkinsW. D. (1998). Why faces may be special: Evidence of the inversion effect in chimpanzees. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 615–622. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892998563013.
61.
PerrettD. I.HietanenJ. K.OramM. W.BensonP. J. (1992). Organization and functions of cells responsive to faces in the temporal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 335, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1992.0003.
R Core Team (2022). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
64.
ReijnenE.WolfeJ. M.KrummenacherJ. (2013). Coarse guidance by numerosity in visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 16–28. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0379-8.
SeowT.FlemingS. M. (2019). Perceptual sensitivity is modulated by what others can see. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81, 1979–1990. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01724-5.
68.
SimpsonE. A.PauknerA.PedersenE. J.FerrariP. F.ParrL. A. (2019). Visual preferences for direct-gaze faces in infant macaques (Macaca mulatta) with limited face exposure. Developmental Psychobiology, 61, 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.21797.
SousaC.OkamotoS.MatsuzawaT. (2003). Behavioural development in a matching-to-sample task and token use by an infant chimpanzee reared by his mother. Animal Cognition, 6, 259–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-003-0186-7.
71.
StahlA. E.KibbeM. M. (2022). Great expectations: The construct validity of the violation-of-expectation method for studying infant cognition. Infant and Child Development, 31, e2359. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2359.
72.
StephensonL. J.EdwardsS. G.BaylissA. P. (2021). From gaze perception to social cognition: The shared-attention system. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16, 553–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620953773.
SuzukiS.CavanaghP. (1995). Facial organization blocks access to low-level features: An object inferiority effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 901–913. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.21.4.901.
75.
TanakaM.TomonagaM.MatsuzawaT.KawaiN. (2003). Acquisition of touchpanel task by infant chimpanzees. In TomonagaM.TanakaM.MatsuzawaT. (Eds.), Cognitive and behavioral development in chimpanzees (pp. 267–270). Kyoto University Press. (Japanese text).
76.
TomaselloM. (1995). Joint attention as social cognition. In MooreC.DunhamP. J. (Eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 103–130). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
77.
TomaselloM. (2022). The coordination of attention and action in great apes and humans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 377(1859), 20210093. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0093.
78.
TomaselloM.CallJ. (1997). Primate cognition. Oxford University Press.
79.
TomaselloM.CallJ.HareB. (1998). Five primate species follow the visual gaze of conspecifics. Animal Behaviour, 55, 1063–1069. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1997.0636.
80.
TomaselloM.CarpenterM.CallJ.BehneT.MollH. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 675–691. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000129.
TomonagaM. (1999). Inversion effect in perception of human faces in a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Primates, 40, 417–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02557579.
83.
TomonagaM. (2001a). Investigating visual perception and cognition in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) through visual search and related tasks: From basic to complex processes. In MatsuzawaT. (Ed.), Primate origin of human cognition and behavior (pp. 55–86). Springer.
84.
TomonagaM. (2001b). Visual search for biological motion patterns in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 44, 46–59.
85.
TomonagaM. (2007a). Visual search for orientation of faces by a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes): Face-specific upright superiority and the role of facial configural properties. Primates, 48, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-006-0011-4.
86.
TomonagaM. (2007b). Is chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) spatial attention reflexively triggered by the gaze cue?Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121, 156–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.121.2.156.
87.
TomonagaM. (2010a). Do the chimpanzee eyes have it? In LonsdorfE. V.RossS. R.MatsuzawaT. (Eds.), The mind of the chimpanzee: Ecological and empirical perspectives (pp. 42–59). University of Chicago Press.
88.
TomonagaM. (2010b). Perception of social stimuli in chimpanzees with special respect to face and gaze perception. Japanese Psychological Review, 53, 298–314. (Japanese text with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.24602/sjpr.53.3_298.
89.
TomonagaM.ImuraT. (2009a). Faces capture the visuospatial attention of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): Evidence from a cueing experiment. Frontiers in Zoology, 6, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-6-14.
90.
TomonagaM.ImuraT. (2009b). Human gestures trigger different attentional shifts in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens). Animal Cognition, 12, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-009-0268-2.
TomonagaM.ImuraT. (2015). Efficient search for a face by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Scientific Reports, 5, 11437. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep11437.
TomonagaM.TanakaM.MatsuzawaT. (2003). Cognitive and behavioral development in chimpanzees: A comparative approach. Kyoto University Press. (Japanese text only).
95.
TomonagaM.TanakaM.MatsuzawaT.Myowa-YamakoshiM.KosugiD.MizunoY.OkamotoS.YamaguchiM. K.BardK. A. (2004). Development of social cognition in infant chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): Face recognition, smiling, gaze, and the lack of triadic interactions1. Japanese Psychological Research, 46, 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5584.2004.00254.x.
96.
UenoA.MatsuzawaT. (2005). Response to novel food in infant chimpanzees: Do infants refer to mothers before ingesting food on their own?Behavioural Processes, 68, 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2004.09.002.
VeceraS. P.JohnsonM. H. (1995). Gaze detection and the cortical processing of faces: Evidence from infants and adults. Visual Cognition, 2, 59–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506289508401722.
99.
VestnerT.GrayK. L. H.CookR. (2021a). Visual search for facing and non-facing people: The effect of actor inversion. Cognition, 208, 104550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104550.
100.
VestnerT.OverH.GrayK. L. H.TipperS. P.CookR. (2021b). Searching for people: Non-facing distractor pairs hinder the visual search of social scenes more than facing distractor pairs. Cognition, 214, 104737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104737.
101.
VestnerT.TipperS. P.HartleyT.OverH.RueschemeyerS.-A. (2019). Bound together: Social binding leads to faster processing, spatial distortion, and enhanced memory of interacting partners. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 1251–1268. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000545.
102.
von GrünauM.AnstonC. (1995). The detection of gaze direction: A stare-in-the-crowd effect. Perception, 24, 1297–1313. https://doi.org/10.1068/p241297.
103.
WilsonD. A.TomonagaM.ChaoL. (2018). Exploring attentional bias towards threatening faces in chimpanzees using the dot probe task. PLoS One, 13, e0207378. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207378.
104.
WilsonD. A.TomonagaM. (2022). Search asymmetries for threatening faces in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 136, 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000302.
WoodwardA. L. (1999). Infants’ ability to distinguish between purposeful and non-purposeful behaviors. Infant Behavior and Development, 22, 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(99)00007-7.
YinJ.XuH.DuanJ.ShenM. (2018). Object-based attention on social units: Visual selection of hands performing a social interaction. Psychological Science, 29, 1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617749636.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
