Numerous studies have shown that the gaze of others produces a special attentional process, such as the eye contact effect or joint attention. This study investigated the attentional process triggered by various types of gaze stimuli (i.e., human, cat, fish, koala, and robot gaze). A total of 300 university students participated in five experiments. They performed a spatial Stroop task in which five types of gaze stimuli were presented as targets. Participants were asked to judge the direction of the target (left or right) irrespective of its location (left or right). The results showed that the social gaze targets (i.e., human and cat gaze) produced a reversed congruency effect. In contrast to the social gaze targets, the non-social gaze (i.e., fish and robot) target did not produce the reversed congruency effect (Experiments 2, 2B, 3, and 4). These results suggest that attention to the gaze of socially communicable beings (i.e., humans and cats) is responsible for the reversed congruency effect. Our findings support the notion that the theory of mind or social interaction plays an important role in producing specific attentional processes in response to gaze stimuli.
AdmoniH.BankC.TanJ.TonevaM. (2011). Robot gaze does not reflexively cue human attention. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 33(33), 1983–1988. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3pq1v9b0
2.
AdmoniH.ScassellatiB. (2017). Social eye gaze in human-robot interaction: A review. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 6(1), 25–63. https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.6.1.Admoni
3.
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
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
7.
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
8.
ChevalierP.KompatsiariK.CiardoF.WykowskaA. (2020). Examining joint attention with the use of humanoid robots-A new approach to study fundamental mechanisms of social cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27, 217–236. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01689-4
9.
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
10.
DriscollC. A.MacdonaldD. W.O’BrienS. J. (2009). From wild animals to domestic pets, an evolutionary view of domestication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(Suppl. 1), 9971–9978. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901586106
EddyT. J.GallupG. G.Jr.PovinelliD. J. (1993). Attribution of cognitive states to animals: Anthropomorphism in comparative perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb00910.x
13.
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
14.
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
FrischenA.BaylissA. P.TipperS. P. (2007a). Gaze cueing of attention: Visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 694–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.694
17.
FrischenA.SmilekD.EastwoodJ. D.TipperS. P. (2007b). Inhibition of return in response to gaze cues: The roles of time course and fixation cue. Visual Cognition, 15(8), 881–895.
18.
GoodrichM. A.SchultzA. C. (2008). Human–robot interaction: A survey. Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction, 1(3), 203–275. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000005
19.
HemmerichK.Narganes-PinedaC.MarottaA.Martín-ArévaloE.JiménezL.LupiáñezJ. (2022). Gaze elicits social and non-social 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
20.
HenningerF.ShevchenkoY.MertensU. K.KieslichP. J.HilbigB. E. (2022). Lab.js: A free, open, online study builder. Behavior Research Methods, 54(2), 556–573. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01283-5
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.
HoodB. M.WillenJ. D.DriverJ. (1998). Adult’s eyes trigger shifts of visual attention in human infants. Psychological Science, 9(2), 131–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00024
23.
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(6), 1163–1174. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2021.1935217
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
26.
KilnerJ. M.PaulignanY.BlakemoreS. J. (2003). An interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Current Biology, 13(6), 522–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00165-9
27.
KobayashiH.KohshimaS. (1997). Unique morphology of the human eye. Nature, 387(6635), 767–768. https://doi.org/10.1038/42842
28.
KompatsiariK.BossiF.WykowskaA. (2021). Eye contact during joint attention with a humanoid robot modulates oscillatory brain activity. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 16(4), 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsab001
29.
KompatsiariK.CiardoF.TikhanoffV.MettaG.WykowskaA. (2018). On the role of eye contact in gaze cueing. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 17842. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36136-2
30.
KoyasuH.KikusuiT.TakagiS.NagasawaM. (2020). The gaze communications between dogs/cats and humans: Recent research review and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 613512. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.613512
31.
MacraeC. N.HoodB. M.MilneA. B.RoweA. C.MasonM. F. (2002). Are you looking at me? Eye gaze and person perception. Psychological Science, 13(5), 460–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00481
32.
ManziF.PerettiG.Di DioC.CangelosiA.ItakuraS.KandaT.IshiguroH.MassaroD.MarchettiA. (2020). A robot is not worth another: Exploring children’s mental state attribution to different humanoid robots. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2011. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02011
33.
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
34.
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
35.
MarottaA.PasiniA.RuggieroS.MaccariL.RosaC.LupiáñezJ.CasagrandeM. (2013). Inhibition of return in response to eye gaze and peripheral cues in young people with Asperger’s syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 917–923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1636-3
36.
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
37.
MiklósiÁ.PongráczP.LakatosG.TopálJ.CsányiV. (2005). A comparative study of the use of visual communicative signals in interactions between dogs (Canis familiaris) and humans and cats (Felis catus) and humans. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 119(2), 179–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.119.2.179
38.
Narganes-PinedaC.ChicaA. B.LupiáñezJ.MarottaA. (2023). 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
39.
OkumuraY.KanakogiY.KandaT.IshiguroH.ItakuraS. (2013a). Infants understand the referential nature of human gaze but not the robot gaze. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(1), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.02.007
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
42.
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
43.
ScaifeM.BrunerJ. S. (1975). The capacity for joint visual attention in the infant. Nature, 253(5489), 265–266. https://doi.org/10.1038/253265a0
44.
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
45.
SenjuA.TojoY.DairokuH.HasegawaT. (2004). Reflexive orienting in response to eye gaze and an arrow in children with and without autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(3), 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00236.x
46.
TaiY. F.ScherflerC.BrooksD. J.SawamotoN.CastielloU. (2004). The human premotor cortex is “mirror” only for biological actions. Current Biology, 14(2), 117–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2004.01.005
47.
TanakaY.IshikawaK.OyamaT.OkuboM. (2023a). Eye gaze is not unique: The reversed congruency effect on gaze and tongue targets. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231203187
48.
TanakaY.IshikawaK.OyamaT.OkuboM. (2023b). Face inversion does not affect the reversed congruency effect of gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 30(3), 974–982. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02208-8
WagenmakersE. J.LoveJ.MarsmanM.JamilT.LyA.VerhagenJ.SelkerR.GronauQ. F.DropmannD.BoutinB.MeerhoffF.KnightP.RajA.van KesterenE. J.van DoornJ.ŠmiraM.EpskampS.EtzA.MatzkeD.MoreyR. D. (2018). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part II: Example applications with JASP. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1323-7
51.
WykowskaA.KajopoulosJ.Ramirez-AmaroK.ChengG. (2015). Autistic traits and sensitivity to human-like features of robot behavior. Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems, 16(2), 219–248. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.16.2.09wyk
