Cuing effects of faces are dependent on handedness and visual field

Abstract

Faces are unlike other visual objects we encounter, in that they alert us to potentially relevant social information. Both face processing and spatial attention are dominant in the right hemisphere of the human brain, with a stronger lateralization in right- than in left-handers. Here, we demonstrate behavioral evidence for an effect of handedness on performance in tasks using faces to direct attention. Nonpredictive, peripheral cues (faces or dots) directed exogenous attention to contrast-varying stimuli (Gabor patches)–a tilted target, a vertical distractor, or both; observers made orientation discriminations on the target stimuli. Whereas cuing with dots increased contrast sensitivity in both groups, cuing with faces increased contrast sensitivity in right- but not in left-handers, for whom opposite hemifield effects resulted in no net increase. Our results reveal that attention modulation by face cues critically depends on handedness and visual hemifield. These previously unreported interactions suggest that such lateralized systems may be functionally connected.

Anxiety modulates the effects of emotion and attention on early vision

“…Facial expression (fearful, neutral) and cue (valid, distributed, invalid) served as within-subjects factors. This resulted in a significant main effect of cue condition ( F (2,68)=2.69, p <.05, one-tailed), in which contrast sensitivity was highest with valid than distributed cues, and lower with invalid cues (Figure 2A), consistent with previous research (Ferneyhough et al, 2010; Pestilli & Carrasco, 2005). Neither the main effect of facial expression, nor the interaction of facial expression and cue, were significant ( F’s <1, p’s >.1).…”

“…First, we replicated previous findings that showed benefits to contrast sensitivity at attended, and costs at unattended, locations regardless of facial expression (Ferneyhough et al, 2010; Pestilli & Carrasco, 2005). Second, the low trait-anxiety group showed greater contrast sensitivity in the fear-valid relative to fear-distributed cue condition, indicating an effect of attention with fear face cues.…”

“…Face stimuli consisted of 22 contrast- and luminance-equated grayscale pictures of fearful and neutral faces from the Pictures of Facial Affect series (Ekman & Friesen, 1976; same as used in Phelps et al, 2006 and Ferneyhough et al, 2010). 2-cpd Gabor patches (SD=1°) were created using MATLAB and the Psychophysics Toolbox (Brainard, 1997).…”

“…The dependent variable was contrast sensitivity, the inverse of contrast threshold. Observers’ six contrast sensitivity scores (one per condition) were individually normalized by dividing each condition mean by the average of all conditions; such normalized scores reduced variability introduced by differences in baseline contrast sensitivity across observers (e.g., Ferneyhough et al, 2010) i .…”

“…In addition to effects on RT, research has recently focused on psychophysical investigations of the interaction of emotion and attention on fundamental dimensions of visual perception (Bocanegra & Zeelenberg, 2009, 2011; Ferneyhough, Stanley, Phelps & Carrasco, 2010; Phelps et al, 2006). Contrast is a visual dimension that underlies stimulus visibility.…”