Literature DB >> 35084707

Infrequent faces bias social attention differently in manual and oculomotor measures.

Effie J Pereira1,2, Elina Birmingham3, Jelena Ristic4.   

Abstract

Although attention is thought to be spontaneously biased by social cues like faces and eyes, recent data have demonstrated that when extraneous content, context, and task factors are controlled, attentional biasing is abolished in manual responses while still occurring sparingly in oculomotor measures. Here, we investigated how social attentional biasing was affected by face novelty by measuring responses to frequently presented (i.e., those with lower novelty) and infrequently presented (i.e., those with higher novelty) face identities. Using a dot-probe task, participants viewed either the same face and house identity that was frequently presented on half of the trials or sixteen different face and house identities that were infrequently presented on the other half of the trials. A response target occurred with equal probability at the previous location of the eyes or mouth of the face or the top or bottom of the house. Experiment 1 measured manual responses to the target while participants maintained central fixation. Experiment 2 additionally measured participants' natural oculomotor behaviour when their eye movements were not restricted. Across both experiments, no evidence of social attentional biasing was found in manual data. However, in Experiment 2, there was a reliable oculomotor bias towards the eyes of infrequently presented upright faces. Together, these findings suggest that face novelty does not facilitate manual measures of social attention, but it appears to promote spontaneous oculomotor biasing towards the eyes of infrequently presented novel faces.
© 2022. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  attentional biasing; faces; novelty; social attention

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35084707     DOI: 10.3758/s13414-021-02432-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  51 in total

1.  Eye-movement-based memory effect: a reprocessing effect in face perception.

Authors:  R R Althoff; N J Cohen
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 3.051

2.  A theory of visual attention.

Authors:  C Bundesen
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  The control of attention to faces.

Authors:  Markus Bindemann; A Mike Burton; Stephen R H Langton; Stefan R Schweinberger; Martin J Doherty
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2007-07-27       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  The Glasgow Face Matching Test.

Authors:  A Mike Burton; David White; Allan McNeill
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2010-02

5.  Faces and text attract gaze independent of the task: Experimental data and computer model.

Authors:  Moran Cerf; E Paxon Frady; Christof Koch
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2009-11-18       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  Attention to upside-down faces: An exception to the inversion effect.

Authors:  Markus Bindemann; A Mike Burton
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  fMRI study of face perception and memory using random stimulus sequences.

Authors:  V P Clark; J M Maisog; J V Haxby
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Caregivers and strangers: The influence of familiarity on gaze following and learning.

Authors:  Ryan A Barry-Anwar; Jessica L Burris; Katharine Graf Estes; Susan M Rivera
Journal:  Infant Behav Dev       Date:  2016-11-26

9.  Electrophysiological Studies of Face Perception in Humans.

Authors:  Shlomo Bentin; Truett Allison; Aina Puce; Erik Perez; Gregory McCarthy
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 3.225

10.  Repetition priming from incomplete faces: evidence for part to whole completion.

Authors:  J Brunas; A W Young; A W Ellis
Journal:  Br J Psychol       Date:  1990-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.