Avatars and arrows: Implicit mentalizing or domain-general processing?

Abstract

Previous studies using the dot perspective task have shown that adults are slower to verify the number of dots they can see in a picture when a human figure in the picture, an avatar, can see a different number of dots. This "self-consistency effect," which occurs even when the avatar's perspective is formally task-irrelevant, has been interpreted as evidence of implicit mentalizing; that humans can think about the mental states of others via dedicated, automatic processes. We tested this interpretation by giving participants 2 versions of the dot perspective task. In some trials, the avatar was presented as in previous experiments, and in other trials the avatar was replaced by an arrow with similar low-level features. We found self-consistency effects of comparable size in the avatar and arrow conditions, suggesting that self-consistency effects in the dot perspective task are due to domain-general processes such as those that mediate automatic attentional orienting.

Anxious and egocentric: How specific emotions influence perspective taking.

“…Although the results of Experiment 2 were not explained by differences in mental-rotation ability, given the established link between anxiety and diminished executive functioning (Eysenck et al, 2007), future research should test whether anxiety and other uncertainty-associated emotions impede performance on a nonsocial, albeit similarly cognitively demanding, version of our perceptual perspective-taking task (e.g., Santiesteban, Catmur, Hopkins, Bird, & Heyes, 2014).…”

Do humans spontaneously take the perspective of others?

“…However, our current data suggest that this correlation between activity in certain brain areas and gaze direction cannot be taken as strong evidence for the automatic computation of perspective. Furthermore, and perhaps more significantly given the attention cueing explanation of the basic Samson et al effect (Santiesteban et al 2014), the TPJ has also been implicated in attention reorientation as well as self-other distinction (see Decety & Lamm, 2007;Mitchell, 2008).…”

“…In addition to the cueing hypothesis (Santiesteban et al 2014), another possibility concerns the critical stimuli (i.e., the dots) and their role as task relevant items. Perhaps observers do take on the perspective of the avatar, but this perspective only sees information relevant to the observer's task; it may be blind with respect to all other stimuli, including barriers.…”

“…For instance, Santiesteban, Catmur, Coughlan Hopkins, Bird, and Heyes (2014) argued that the avatars employed in the Samson et al experiments act as a cue that shifts attention to one side of the display. Indeed, the basic spontaneous perspective taking method is similar to the classic central cueing paradigm (Langton & Bruce, 1998) A problem however with the cueing hypothesis is that the perspective and cueing effects may operate independently but still generate a similar pattern of data.…”

Eye tracking reveals the cost of switching between self and other perspectives in a visual perspective-taking task

“…Though no previous studies have examined these visual biases in the visual perspective-taking task, related research has demonstrated that gaze direction provides a strong attentional cue in guiding eye movements toward the location of an actor's gaze (Borji, Parks, & Itti, 2014;Castelhano, Wieth, & Henderson, 2007). Crucially, this methodology should also provide a means of disentangling traditional mentalising accounts for spontaneous visual 7 perspective-taking from directional (or sub-mentalising) accounts, which suggest that attention is driven by domain-general processes based on directional features of the avatar (Heyes, 2014;Santiesteban, Catmur, Hopkins, Bird, & Heyes, 2014). Specifically, Santiesteban et al (2014) found a comparable reaction time difference between consistent and inconsistent trials when the central avatar was replaced with an arrow (but see Schurz, Kronbichler, Weissengruber, Surtees, Samson, &Perner, 2015 andNielsen et al, 2015).…”