When we interact with others, we use nonverbal behavior such as changes in gaze direction to make inferences about what people think or what they want to do next – a process called mentalizing. Previous studies have shown that how we react to others’ gaze signals depends on how much “mind” we ascribe to the gazer, and that this process of mind perception is related to activation in brain areas that process social information (i.e., social brain). Although brain stimulation studies have identified prefrontal structures like the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) as the potential neural substrate through which mind perception modulates social-cognitive processes like attentional orienting to gaze cues (i.e., gaze following), little is known about whether and how individual differences in preferences for human versus robot agents modulate this relationship. To address this question, the current study examines how transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of left prefrontal versus left temporo-parietal areas affects attentional orienting to gaze signals as a function of the participants’ preferences for human (Human Gaze Followers, HGF) versus robot (Robot Gaze Followers; RGF) agents at baseline (prior to brain stimulation). Results show that prefrontal (but not temporo-parietal) stimulation positively affected attentional orienting to gaze signals for HGFs for the human but not the robot gazer; RGFs showed no effect of brain stimulation in neither of the stimulation conditions. These findings inform how preferences for human versus nonhuman agent types can influence subsequent interactions and communications in human-robot interaction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdolphsR. (2009). The Social Brain: Neural Basis of Social Knowledge. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 693–716.
2.
Baron-CohenS. (1997). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. MIT press.
3.
Baron-CohenS.WheelwrightS.SkinnerR.MartinJ.ClubleyE. (2001). The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): Evidence from asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(1), 5–17.
4.
BartneckC.CroftE.KulicD. (2008). Measuring the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. In Metrics for HRI Workshop, Technical Report (pp. 37–44).
5.
BaylissA. P.di PellegrinoG.TipperS. P. (2005). Sex differences in eye gaze and symbolic cueing of attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 58(4), 631–650.
6.
BiksonM.DattaA.ElwassifM. (2009). Establishing safety limits for transcranial direct current stimulation. Clinical Neurophysiology, 120(6), 1033–1034.
7.
BlumbergE. J.ForoughiC. K.ScheldrupM. R.PetersonM. S.Boehm-DavisD. A.ParasuramanR. (2014). Reducing the disruptive effects of Iiterruptions with noninvasive brain stimulation. Human Factors, 57(6), 1051–1062.
8.
BullardL. M.BrowningE. S.ClarkV. P.CoffmanB. A.GarciaC. M.JungR. E.… WeisendM. P. (2011). Transcranial direct current stimulation’s effect on novice versus experienced learning. Experimental Brain Research, 213(1), 9–14.
9.
CaruanaN.de LissaP.McArthurG. (2015). The neural time course of evaluating self-initiated joint attention bids. Brain and Cognition, 98, 43–52.
10.
CaruanaN.de LissaP.McArthurG. (2017). Beliefs about human agency influence the neural processing of gaze during joint attention. Social Neuroscience, 12(2), 194–206.
11.
CastelliF.FrithC.HappéF.FrithU. (2002). Autism, asperger syndrome and brain mechanisms for the attribution of mental states to animated shapes. Brain, 125(8), 1839–1849.
12.
CastelliFulviaHappéF.FrithU.FrithC. (2000). Movement and mind: A functional imaging study of perception and interpretation of complex intentional movement patterns. NeuroImage, 12(3), 314–325.
13.
EpleyN.WaytzA.AkalisS.CacioppoJ. T. (2008). When We Need A Human: Motivational Determinants of Anthropomorphism. Social Cognition, 26(2), 143–155.
14.
ForoughiC. K.WrenW. C.BarragánD.MeadP. R.Boehm-DavisD. A. (2015). Assessing mental rotation ability in a virtual environment with an oculus rift. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 59, pp. 1849–1852).
15.
FriesenC. K.KingstoneA. (1998). The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(3), 490–495.
16.
FrithC. D.FrithU. (2006). How we predict what other people are going to do. Brain Research, 1079, 36–46.
17.
GallagherH. L.HappéF.BrunswickN.FletcherP. C.FrithU.FrithC. D. (2000). Reading the mind in cartoons and stories: An fMRI study of “theory of mind” in verbal and nonverbal tasks. Neuropsychologia, 38(1), 11–21.
18.
HackelL. M.LooserC. E.Van BavelJ. J. (2014). Group membership alters the threshold for mind perception: The role of social identity, collective identification, and intergroup threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 15–23.
19.
HopfingerJ. B.BuonocoreM. H.MangunG. R. (2000). The neural mechanisms of top-down attentional control. Nature Neuroscience, 3(3), 284–291.
20.
KrauseB.Cohen KadoshR. (2014). Not all brains are created equal: the relevance of individual differences in responsiveness to transcranial electrical stimulation. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8.
21.
LiuzzaM. T.CazzatoV.VecchioneM.CrostellaF.CapraraG. V.AgliotiS. M. (2011). Follow my eyes: The gaze of politicians reflexively captures the gaze of ingroup voters. PLoS ONE, 6(9), e25117.
22.
McCabeK.HouserD.RyanL.SmithV.TrouardT. (2001). A functional imaging study of cooperation in two-person reciprocal exchange. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(20), 11832–11835.
23.
NomuraT.KandaT.SuzukiT. (2006). Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human-robot interaction. AI and Society, 20(2), 138–150.
24.
OostenveldR.PraamstraP. (2001). The five percent electrode system for high-resolution EEG and ERP measurements. Clinical Neurophysiology, 7.
25.
ÖzdemC.WieseE.WykowskaA.MüllerH.BrassM.Van OverwalleF. (2016). Believing androids – fMRI activation in the right temporo-parietal junction is modulated by ascribing intentions to nonhuman agents. Social Neuroscience, 12(5), 582–593.
26.
PfeifferU. J.TimmermansB.BenteG.VogeleyK.SchilbachL. (2011). A non-verbal turing test: Differentiating mind from machine in gaze-based social interaction. PLoS ONE, 6(11).
27.
StaffordR. Q.MacDonaldB. A.JayawardenaC.WegnerD. M.BroadbentE. (2014). Does the robot have a mind? Mind perception and attitudes towards robots predict use of an eldercare robot. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(1), 17–32.
28.
StephensJ. A.JonesK. T.BerryhillM. E. (2017). Task demands, tDCS intensity, and the COMT val158met polymorphism impact tDCS-linked working memory training gains. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–11.
29.
SyrdalD. S.DautenhahnK.KoayK. L.WaltersM. L. (2009). The negative attitudes towards robots scale and reactions to robot behaviour in a live human-robot interaction study. Adaptive and Emergent Behaviour and Complex Systems., 7.
30.
Van OverwalleF. (2009). Social cognition and the brain: A meta-analysis. Human Brain Mapping, 30(3), 829–858.
31.
WagnerD. D.KelleyW. M.HeathertonT. F. (2011). Individual differences in the spontaneous recruitment of brain regions supporting mental state understanding when viewing natural social scenes. Cerebral Cortex, 21(12), 2788–2796.
32.
WangJ.LewisM. (2007). Human control for cooperating robot teams. In Proceeding of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction - HRI ’07 (p. 9). Arlington, Virginia, USA: ACM Press.
33.
WaytzA.GrayK.EpleyN.WegnerD. M. (2010). Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(8), 383–388.
34.
WieseE.AbubshaitA.AzarianB.BlumbergE. J. (2019). Brain stimulation to left prefrontal cortex modulates attentional orienting to gaze cues. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 374(1771), 13.
35.
WieseE.BuzzellG. A.AbubshaitA.BeattyP. J. (2018). Seeing minds in others: Mind perception modulates low-level social-cognitive performance and relates to ventromedial prefrontal structures. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 18(5), 837–856.
36.
WieseE.MettaG.WykowskaA. (2017). Robots as intentional agents: Using neuroscientific methods to make robots appear more social. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1663.
37.
WieseE.MüllerH. J.WykowskaA. (2014). Using a gaze-cueing paradigm to examine social cognitive mechanisms of individuals with autism observing robot and human faces. In International Conference on Social Robotics (Vol. 8755, pp. 370–379). Cham: Springer.
38.
WykowskaA.WieseE.ProsserA.MüllerH. J. (2014). Beliefs about the Minds of Others Influence How We Process Sensory Information. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e94339.
