Deficiency of object-based attention specific to the gaze cue is independent of top-down attentional strategies

Abstract

This study investigated whether modes of attentional selection (location-based or object-based) are modulated by the cue type, specifically social cues such as eye gaze and pointing fingers, or by a non-social cue, such as an arrow. Earlier studies have demonstrated that the object-based attention effect was found only with arrow cues when presenting a spatial cue at either end of a rectangle: gaze cues did not yield object-based facilitation. We examined whether this deficiency of object-based attention is generalized to social cues such as pointing fingers. We measured the reaction times to the target at each cued location, an opposite side of a cued location in the same object, or the location in a different object equidistant from the cued location for each cue. Results indicated that only the gaze cue weakened the object-based attention effect, even under the condition of participants’ voluntary extension of their attentional focus. The pointing cue induced sufficient object-based facilitation, as did the arrow cue. These results suggest that the deficiency of object-based attention was observed only for the gaze cue, and that it would be caused by a factor that is unique to the gaze cue, which narrows the attentional focus.

Keywords

gaze-cueing effect gaze perception object-based attention spatial cueing visual attention

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ariga

Watanabe

(2009). What is special about the index finger?: The index finger advantage in manipulating reflexive attentional shift. Japanese Psychological Research, 51, 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5884.2009.00408.x

Baron-Cohen

(1995a). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. MIT Press.

Baron-Cohen

(1995b). The eye direction detector (EDD) and the shared attention mechanism (SAM): Two cases for evolutionary psychology. In Moore

Dunham

P. J.

(Eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 41–59). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Brignani

Guzzon

Marzi

C. A.

Miniussi

(2009). Attentional orienting induced by arrows and eye-gaze compared with an endogenous cue. Neuropsychologia, 47, 370–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.09.011

Callejas

Shulman

G. L.

Corbetta

(2014). Dorsal and ventral attention systems underlie social and symbolic cueing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26, 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn

Campbell

J. I.

Thompson

V. A.

(2012). Morepower 6.0 for ANOVA with relational confidence intervals and Bayesian analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1255–1265. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0186-0

Chacón-Candia, J. A., Lupiáñez, J., Casagrande, M., & Marotta, A. (2020). Sex differences in attentional selection following gaze and arrow cues. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00095

Chacón-Candia, J. A., Román-Caballero, R., Aranda-Martín,B., Casagrande, M., Lupiáñez, J., & Marotta, A. (2023). Are there quantitative differences between eye-gaze and arrow cues? A meta-analytic answer to the debate and a call for qualitative differences, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 144, 104993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104993

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum.

10.

Cooperrider

Slotta

Núñez

(2018). The preference for pointing with the hand is not universal. Cognitive Science, 42, 1375–1390. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12585

11.

Csibra

(2003). Teleological and referential understanding of action in infancy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 358, 447–458. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2002.1235

12.

Dalmaso

Castelli

Franchetti

Carli

Todisco

Palomba

Galfano

(2015). Altered orienting of attention in anorexia nervosa. Psychiatry Research, 229, 318–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.06.044

13.

Dalmaso

Galfano

Tarqui

Forti

Castelli

(2013). Is social attention impaired in schizophrenia? Gaze, but not pointing gestures, is associated with spatial attention deficits. Neuropsychology, 27, 608–613. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033518

14.

Driver

Davis

Ricciardelli

Kidd

Maxwell

Baron-Cohen

(1999). Gaze perception triggers reflexive visuospatial orienting. Visual Cognition, 6, 509–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/135062899394920

15.

Duncan

(1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information . Multielement visual tracking: Attention and perceptual organization. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 113, 501–517.

16.

Egly

Driver

Rafal

R. 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

17.

Friesen

C. K.

Kingstone

(1998). The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5, 490–495. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208827

18.

Galfano

Dalmaso

Marzoli

Pavan

Coricelli

Castelli

(2012). Eye gaze cannot be ignored (but neither can arrows). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1895–1910. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.663765

19.

Goldsmith

Yeari

(2003). Modulation of object-based attention by spatial focus under endogenous and exogenous orienting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 897–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.5.897

20.

Goldsmith

Yeari

(2012). Central-cue discriminability modulates object-based attention by influencing spatial attention. Experimental Psychology, 59, 132–137. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000135

21.

Gregory

N. J.

Hermens

Facey

Hodgson

T. L.

(2016). The developmental trajectory of attentional orienting to socio-biological cues. Experimental Brain Research, 234, 1351–1362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4627-3

22.

Gregory

N. J.

Hodgson

T. L.

(2012). Giving subjects the eye and showing them the finger: Socio-biological cues and saccade generation in the anti-saccade task. Perception, 41, 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7085

23.

Gregory

S. E.

Jackson

M. C.

(2017). Joint attention enhances visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000294

24.

Gregory

S. E. A.

Jackson

M. C.

(2018). Barriers block the effect of joint attention on working memory: Perspective taking matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45, 795–806. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000622

25.

Hietanen

J. K.

Nummenmaa

Nyman

M. J.

Parkkola

Hämäläinen

(2006). Automatic attention orienting by social and symbolic cues activates different neural networks: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 33, 406–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.06.048

26.

Hommel

Pratt

Colzato

Richard

(2001). Symbolic control of visual attention. Psychological Science, 12, 360–365.

27.

Hood

B. M.

Willen

D. J.

Driver

(1998). Adult’s eyes trigger shifts of visual attention in human infants. Psychological Science, 9, 131–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00024

28.

JASP Team (2022). JASP (Version 0.16.4) [Computer software]. https://jasp-stats.org/

29.

Lakens

(2014). Performing high-powered studies efficiently with sequential analyses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 701–710. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2023

30.

Langton

S. R. H.

Law

A. S.

Burton

A. M.

Schweinberger

S. R.

(2008). Attention capture by faces. Cognition, 107, 330–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.012

31.

Lavie

Russell

(2003). The role of perceptual load in processing distractor faces. Psychological Science, 14, 510–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.03453

32.

Liszkowski

Carpenter

Henning

Striano

Tomasello

(2004). Twelve-month-olds point to share attention and interest. Developmental Science, 7, 297–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00349.x

33.

Macquistan

A. D.

(1997). Object-based allocation of visual attention in response to exogenous, but not endogenous, spatial precues. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4, 512–515. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214341

34.

Marotta

Casagrande

Lupiáñez

(2013). Object-based attentional effects in response to eye-gaze and arrow cues. Acta Psychologica, 143, 317–321.

35.

Marotta

Lupiáñez

Martella

Casagrande

(2012). Eye gaze versus arrows as spatial cues: Two qualitatively different modes of attentional selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 326–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023959

36.

Marotta

Román-Caballero

Lupiáñez

(2018). Arrows do not look at you: Qualitatively different attentional mechanisms triggered by gaze and arrows. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 25, 2254–2259. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1457-2

37.

Morgan

E. J.

Freeth

Smith

D. T.

(2018). Mental state attributions mediate the gaze cueing effect. Vision, 2, 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/vision2010011

38.

Peirce

Gray

J. R.

Simpson

MacAskill

Höchenberger

Sogo

Kastman

Lindeløv

J. K.

(2019). Psychopy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y

39.

Perret

D. I.

Hietanen

J. K.

Oram

M. W.

Benson

P. 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://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1348133/

40.

Posner

M. I.

(1980). Orienting of attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335558008248231

41.

Sato

Kawahara

J. I.

(2015). Attentional capture by completely task-irrelevant faces. Psychological Research, 79, 523–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0599-8

42.

Sato

Kochiyama

Uono

Yoshikawa

(2010). Automatic attentional shifts by gaze, gestures, and symbols. Psychologia, 53, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.2117/psysoc.2010.27

43.

Senju

Tojo

Dairoku

Hasegawa

(2004). Reflexive orienting in response to eye gaze and an arrow in children with and without autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00236.x

44.

Senju

Tojo

Yaguchi

Hasegawa

(2005). Deviant gaze processing in children with autism: An ERP study. Neuropsychologia, 43, 1297–1306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.12.002

45.

Senju

Yaguchi

Tojo

Hasegawa

(2003). Eye contact does not facilitate detection in children with autism. Cognition, 89, B43–B51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00081-7

46.

Shaffer, J. P. (1986). Modified sequentially rejective multiple test procedures. Journal of American Statistical Association, 81, 826-831.

47.

Syrjämäki

A. H.

Hietanen

J. K.

(2020). Social inclusion, but not exclusion, delays attentional disengagement from direct gaze. Psychological Research, 84, 1126–1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1108-2

48.

Theeuwes

Van der Stigchel

(2006). Faces capture attention: Evidence from inhibition of return. Visual Cognition, 13, 657–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280500410949

49.

Tomasello

(1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjsf4jc

50.

Tomasello

Carpenter

Liszkowski

(2007). A new look at infant pointing. Child Development, 78, 705–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01025.x

51.

Ulrich

Miller

(2021). Alternative sequential methods in statistical testing: A reply to Lakens (2021) and Erdfelder and Schnuerch (2021). Psychological Methods, 26, 507–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000420

52.

Wiese

Müller

H. J.

Wykowska

(2014). Using a gaze-cueing paradigm to examine social cognitive mechanisms of individuals with autism observing robot and human faces. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 8755, 370–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11973-1_38

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.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB