Gaze elicits social and nonsocial attentional orienting: An interplay of shared and unique conflict processing mechanisms.

Abstract

Subtle to no attentional differences have been broadly observed when using gaze and arrows as orienting cues. However, recent studies have found opposite effects when they are used as targets in spatial interference tasks, with arrows eliciting faster responses when their position is congruent with the indicated direction and gaze producing faster responses in incongruent conditions. In two preregistered experiments aimed at exploring the mechanisms supporting these findings, we examined whether the congruency sequence effects (CSE) elicited by gaze and arrows generalized from one stimulus to another, using an intrablock design where the type of stimuli was manipulated on a trial-by-trial basis. Typical CSE were observed for arrows, with a decrease of congruency effects after incongruent trials, and reversed CSE for gaze, with an increased inversion of congruency effects after incongruent trials. Both patterns occurred independently of the preceding type of target, showing that congruency effects can decrease after positive outcomes (e.g., arrow trials following an incongruent gaze trial), and generalized across different nonsocial and social stimuli as shown in a third experiment. These results are consistent with the coexistence of a shared spatial interference component between gaze and arrow trials, potentially responsible for the CSE obtained in switching target trials, and an additional social dimension, exclusively engaged in gaze trials.

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

“…In congruent trials, however, eye-gaze is averted away from the central point of mutual attention, looking at out of the task. Therefore, in congruent trials, it is possible that our attention and eyes are moved outside the task, causing what might be called "joint distraction", i.e., drawing attention outside of the task and therefore increasing RTs (see Hemmerich et al, 2021, for an extended explanation of this hypothesis).…”

“…Although Edwards et al (2020) have attributed the RCE to joint attention, i.e., the beneficial effect of both the participant and the gaze to look at the fixation point in incongruent trials, Aranda-Martín et al (2022) have recently shown that the RCE does not appear until late childhood, in spite of joint attention being fully developed much earlier (Mundy et al, 2007). This would leave "joint distraction" (Hemmerich et al, 2021) as the more likely explanation of RCE.…”

Eye gaze is not special: The reversed spatial Stroop effect on gaze and tongue targets

“…In the gaze spatial Stroop task, a reversed spatial Stroop effect was observed, with shorter reaction times when the gaze direction and its position were incongruent than when they were congruent. The opposite spatial spatial Stroop effects for arrow and gaze targets suggest a unique attentional mechanism for the eye gaze (Cañadas & Lupiáñez, 2012;Edwards et al, 2020;Hemmerich et al, 2022;Ishikawa et al, 2021;Marotta et al, 2018).…”

“…Several attempts have been made to explain the reversed spatial Stroop effect (Cañadas & Lupiáñez, 2012;Edwards et al, 2020;Hemmerich et al, 2022;Ishikawa et al, 2021;Marotta et al, 2018), emphasizing the social role of the eye gaze. Cañadas and Lupiáñez (2012) proposed the eye-contact hypothesis (Ishikawa et al, 2021;Marotta et al, 2018).…”

“…Given the socially significant role of the eye gaze, researchers have proposed a unique attentional mechanism for gaze processing (Driver et al, 1999;Friesen et al, 2004;Marotta et al, 2012). Recently, this mechanism has been demonstrated by using the spatial Stroop paradigm (Cañadas & Lupiáñez, 2012;Edwards et al, 2020;Hemmerich et al, 2022;Ishikawa et al, 2021;Marotta et al, 2018). The spatial Stroop task measures the spatial interference between direction and location (for a review, see Lu & Proctor, 1995).…”