In the spatial Stroop task, an arrow target produces a spatial Stroop effect, whereas a gaze target elicits a reversed congruency effect. The reversed congruency effect has been explained by the unique attentional mechanisms of eye gaze. However, recent studies have shown that not only gaze but arrow targets produced a reversed congruency effect when embedded in a complex background. The present study investigated whether non-gaze targets produce a reversed congruency effect. In Experiments 1 and 2, we used the tongue, which is not commonly used to indicate spatial directions in daily life, as a target in the spatial Stroop task, in addition to the conventional gaze and arrows. In Experiment 3, we used arrow stimuli embedded in a complex background as a target. Participants judged the left/right direction of the target presented in the left or right visual field. Although arrow and gaze targets replicated previous findings (spatial Stroop and reversed congruency effect, respectively), the tongue target produced a reversed congruency effect (Experiments 1 and 2). The spatial Stroop effect of arrow targets disappeared when they were in a complex background (Experiment 3). These results are inconsistent with previous accounts emphasising the unique status of eye gaze. We propose that temporal decay of the location code and response inhibition are responsible for the reversal of spatial interference.
Aranda-MartínB.Ballesteros-DuperónM. Á.LupiáñezJ. (2022). What gaze adds to arrows: Changes in attentional response to gaze versus arrows in childhood and adolescence. British Journal of Psychology, 113(3), 718–738. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12552
4.
ArigaA.WatanabeK. (2009). What is special about the index finger? The index finger advantage in manipulating reflexive attentional shift. Japanese Psychological Research, 51(4), 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5884.2009.00408.x
BardK.RussellC. (1999). Evolutionary foundations of imitation: Social, cognitive, and developmental aspects of imitative processes in non-human primates. In MatsuzawaT. (Ed.), Imitation in infancy: Progress and prospects of current research (pp. 89–123). Cambridge University Press.
7.
Baron-CohenS. (1997). How to build a baby that can read minds: Cognitive mechanisms in mindreading. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition, 13(5), 513–552.
8.
BonventreS.MarottaA. (2023). Is the reversed congruency effect unique to the eye-gaze? Investigating the effects of finger pointing, eye-gaze and arrows stimuli on spatial interference. Frontiers in Cognition, 2, 1135435. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcogn.2023.1135435
9.
CañadasE.LupiáñezJ. (2012). Spatial interference between gaze direction and gaze location: A study on the eye contact effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(8), 1586–1598. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.659190
10.
Chacón-CandiaJ. A.Román-CaballeroR.Aranda-MartínB.CasagrandeM.LupiáñezJ.MarottaA. (2022). 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
11.
ChenZ.ThomasR. H.ChenM. S. (2022). Do gaze and non-gaze stimuli trigger different spatial interference effects? It depends on stimulus perceivability. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 801151. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.801151
12.
DalmasoM.CastelliL.GalfanoG. (2020). Social modulators of gaze-mediated orienting of attention: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27, 833–855. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01730-x
13.
DalmasoM.GalfanoG.TarquiL.FortiB.CastelliL. (2013). Is social attention impaired in schizophrenia? Gaze, but not pointing gestures, is associated with spatial attention deficits. Neuropsychology, 27(5), 608–613. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033518
14.
De LeeuwJ. R. (2015). jsPsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a web browser. Behavior Research Methods, 47(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y
EdwardsS. G.SeibertN.BaylissA. P. (2020). Joint attention facilitates observed gaze direction discrimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(1), 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819867901
18.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G* power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
19.
FriesenC. K.RisticJ.KingstoneA. (2004). Attentional effects of counterpredictive gaze and arrow cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(2), 319–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.2.319
20.
HemmerichK.Narganes-PinedaC.MarottaA.Martín-ArévaloE.JiménezL.LupiáñezJ. (2022). Gaze elicits social and nonsocial attentional orienting: An interplay of shared and unique conflict processing mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 48(8), 824–841. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001015
21.
HommelB. (1993). The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap. Psychological Research, 55(4), 280–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419688
22.
IshikawaK.OyamaT.OkuboM. (2021). The malfunction of domain-specific attentional process in social anxiety: Attentional process of social and non-social stimuli. Cognition and Emotion, 35, 1163–1174. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2021.1935217
23.
JonesS. (2015). The mediating effects of facial expression on spatial interference between gaze direction and gaze location. The Journal of General Psychology, 142(2), 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2015.1009822
24.
Juncos-RabadánO.PereiroA. X.FacalD. (2008). Cognitive interference and aging: Insights from a spatial stimulus–response consistency task. Acta Psychologica, 127(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.05.003
25.
KingstoneA.FriesenC. K.GazzanigaM. S. (2000). Reflexive joint attention depends on lateralized cortical connections. Psychological Science, 11(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00232
26.
LangtonS. R.BruceV. (1999). Reflexive visual orienting in response to the social attention of others. Visual Cognition, 6(5), 541–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/135062899394939
27.
LegersteeM. (1991). The role of person and object in eliciting early imitation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 51(3), 423–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(91)90086-8
28.
LuC.-H.ProctorR. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2(2), 174–207. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210959
29.
MarottaA.Aranda-MartínB.De ConoM.Ballesteros-DuperónM. Á.CasagrandeM.LupiáñezJ. (2022). Integration of facial expression and gaze direction in individuals with a high level of autistic traits. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(5), 2798. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052798
30.
MarottaA.LupiáñezJ.MartellaD.CasagrandeM. (2012). Eye gaze versus arrows as spatial cues: Two qualitatively different modes of attentional selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(2), 326–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023959
31.
MarottaA.LupiáñezJ.Román-CaballeroR.Narganes-PinedaC.Martín-ArévaloE. (2019). Are eyes special? Electrophysiological and behavioural evidence for a dissociation between eye-gaze and arrows attentional mechanisms. Neuropsychologia, 129, 146–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.03.017
32.
MarottaA.Román-CaballeroR.LupiáñezJ. (2018). Arrows don’t look at you: Qualitatively different attentional mechanisms triggered by gaze and arrows. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(6), 2254–2259. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1457-2
Narganes-PinedaC.ChicaA. B.LupiáñezJ.MarottaA. (2022). Explicit vs. Implicit spatial processing in arrow vs. Eye-gaze spatial congruency effects. Psychological Research, 87(1), 242–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01659-x
38.
OyamaT.OkuboM. (2022). Face and eyes: Critical analysis of the cue-target spatial-conflict account for gaze cueing effect. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 92(6), 511–521. https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.92.20011
39.
PosnerM. I.RafalR. D.ChoateL. S.VaughanJ. (1985). Inhibition of return: Neural basis and function. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2(3), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643298508252866
40.
ProctorR. W.MilesJ. D.BaroniG. (2011). Reaction time distribution analysis of spatial correspondence effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(2), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0053-5
RidderinkhofK. R. (2002a). Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: Empirical clarification through distributional analyses. In PrinzW.HommelB. (Ed.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance XIX (pp. 494–519). Guilford Press.
43.
RidderinkhofK. R. (2002b). Micro-and macro-adjustments of task set: Activation and suppression in conflict tasks. Psychological Research, 66(4), 312–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0104-7
44.
RidderinkhofK. R.van den WildenbergW. P. M.WijnenJ.BurleB. (2004). Response inhibition in conflict tasks is revealed in delta plots. In PosnerM. (Ed.), Cognitive neuro-science of attention (pp. 369–377). Guilford Press.
45.
Román-CaballeroR.MarottaA.LupiáñezJ. (2021a). Spatial interference triggered by gaze and arrows. The role of target background on spatial interference. Psicológica Journal, 42(2), 192–209. https://doi.org/10.2478/psicolj-2021-0010
46.
Román-CaballeroR.MarottaA.LupiáñezJ. (2021b). Target–background segregation in a spatial interference paradigm reveals shared and specific attentional mechanisms triggered by gaze and arrows. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 47(11), 1561–1573. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000953
47.
RozinP.LoweryL.EbertR. (1994). Varieties of disgust faces and the structure of disgust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 870–881. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.870
48.
SenjuA.HasegawaT.TojoY. (2005). Does perceived direct gaze boost detection in adults and children with and without autism? The stare-in-the-crowd effect revisited. Visual Cognition, 12(8), 1474–1496. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280444000797
49.
SenjuA.JohnsonM. H. (2009). The eye contact effect: Mechanisms and development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(3), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.11.009
50.
SenjuA.KikuchiY.HasegawaT.TojoY.OsanaiH. (2008). Is anyone looking at me? Direct gaze detection in children with and without autism. Brain and Cognition, 67(2), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2007.12.001
51.
TanakaY.IshikawaK.OyamaT.OkuboM. (2022). Face inversion does not affect the reversed congruency effect of gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 30, 974–982. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02208-8
52.
TipperS. P. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory priming by ignored objects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37(4), 571–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748508400920
53.
TipperS. P.MacQueenG. M.BrehautJ. C. (1988). Negative priming between response modalities: Evidence for the central locus of inhibition in selective attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 43(1), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208972
54.
TomaselloM. (1995). Joint attention as social cognition. In MooreC.DunhamP. J. (Ed.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 353–383). Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315806617
55.
TrevarthenC.KokkinakiT.FiamenghiG. A.Jr. (1999). What infants’ imitations communicate: With mothers, with fathers and with peers. In NadelJ.ButterworthG. (Eds.), Imitation in infancy (pp. 127–185). Cambridge University Press.
UzgirisI. C. (1999). Imitation as activity: Its developmental aspects. In NadelJ.ButterworthG. (Eds.), Imitation in infancy (pp. 186–206). Cambridge University Press.
