Literature DB >> 29546665

Arrows don't look at you: Qualitatively different attentional mechanisms triggered by gaze and arrows.

Andrea Marotta1, Rafael Román-Caballero2, Juan Lupiáñez2.   

Abstract

Eye gaze conveys rich information concerning the states of mind of others, playing a critical role in social interactions, signaling internal states, and guiding others' attention. On the basis of its social significance, some researchers have proposed that eye gaze may represent a unique attentional stimulus. However, contrary to this notion, the majority of the literature has shown indistinguishable attentional effects when eye gaze and arrows have been used as cues. Taking a different approach, in this study we aimed at finding qualitative attentional differences between gazes and arrows when they were used as targets instead of as cues. We used a spatial Stroop task, in which participants were required to identify the direction of eyes or arrows presented to the left or the right of a fixation point. The results showed that the two types of stimuli led to opposite spatial interference effects, with arrows producing faster reaction times when the stimulus direction was congruent with the stimulus position (a typical spatial Stroop effect), and eye gaze producing faster reaction times when it was incongruent (a "reversed" spatial Stroop effect). This reversed Stroop is interpreted as an eye-contact effect, therefore revealing the unique nature of eyes as special social-attention stimuli.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Arrows; Attention; Gaze; Spatial Stroop

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29546665     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-018-1457-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  28 in total

1.  My eyes want to look where your eyes are looking: exploring the tendency to imitate another individual's gaze.

Authors:  Paola Ricciardelli; Emanuela Bricolo; Salvatore M Aglioti; Leonardo Chelazzi
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2002-12-03       Impact factor: 1.837

2.  Spatial interference between gaze direction and gaze location: a study on the eye contact effect.

Authors:  Elena Cañadas; Juan Lupiáñez
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2012-04-25       Impact factor: 2.143

3.  Automatic attention orienting by social and symbolic cues activates different neural networks: an fMRI study.

Authors:  Jari K Hietanen; Lauri Nummenmaa; Mikko J Nyman; Riitta Parkkola; Heikki Hämäläinen
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2006-09-01       Impact factor: 6.556

4.  Separate mechanisms recruited by exogenous and endogenous spatial cues: evidence from a spatial Stroop paradigm.

Authors:  María Jesús Funes; Juan Lupiáñez; Bruce Milliken
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects.

Authors:  C H Lu; R W Proctor
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1995-06

6.  Eye gaze versus arrows as spatial cues: two qualitatively different modes of attentional selection.

Authors:  Andrea Marotta; Juan Lupiáñez; Diana Martella; Maria Casagrande
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2011-06-20       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  Attention and joint attention in preschool children with autism.

Authors:  S R Leekam; B López; C Moore
Journal:  Dev Psychol       Date:  2000-03

8.  Seeing direct and averted gaze activates the approach-avoidance motivational brain systems.

Authors:  Jari K Hietanen; Jukka M Leppänen; Mikko J Peltola; Kati Linna-Aho; Heidi J Ruuhiala
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2008-03-08       Impact factor: 3.139

Review 9.  Human social attention: A new look at past, present, and future investigations.

Authors:  Elina Birmingham; Alan Kingstone
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 5.691

10.  Avatars and arrows: implicit mentalizing or domain-general processing?

Authors:  Idalmis Santiesteban; Caroline Catmur; Senan Coughlan Hopkins; Geoffrey Bird; Cecilia Heyes
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2013-12-30       Impact factor: 3.332

View more
  5 in total

1.  Explicit vs. implicit spatial processing in arrow vs. eye-gaze spatial congruency effects.

Authors:  Cristina Narganes-Pineda; Ana B Chica; Juan Lupiáñez; Andrea Marotta
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2022-02-22

2.  Catch the star! Spatial information activates the manual motor system.

Authors:  A Miklashevsky
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-08       Impact factor: 3.752

3.  Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation May Enhance Only Specific Aspects of the Core Executive Functions. A Randomized Crossover Trial.

Authors:  Uirassu Borges; Laura Knops; Sylvain Laborde; Stefanie Klatt; Markus Raab
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2020-05-25       Impact factor: 4.677

4.  Do gaze and non-gaze stimuli trigger different spatial interference effects? It depends on stimulus perceivability.

Authors:  Zhe Chen; Rebecca H Thomas; Makayla S Chen
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-09-13

5.  Integration of Facial Expression and Gaze Direction in Individuals with a High Level of Autistic Traits.

Authors:  Andrea Marotta; Belén Aranda-Martín; Marco De Cono; María Ángeles Ballesteros-Duperón; Maria Casagrande; Juan Lupiáñez
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-02-27       Impact factor: 3.390

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.