Investigating facilitatory versus inhibitory effects of dynamic social and non-social cues on attention in a realistic space

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the facilitatory versus inhibitory effects of dynamic non-predictive central cues presented in a realistic environment. Realistic human-avatars initiated eye contact and then dynamically looked to the left, right or centre of a table. A moving stick served as a non-social control cue and participants localised (Experiment 1) or discriminated (Experiment 2) a contextually relevant target (teapot/teacup). The cues movement took 500 ms and stimulus onset asynchronies (SOA, 150 ms/300 ms/500 ms/1000 ms) were measured from movement initiation. Similar cuing effects were seen for the social avatar and non-social stick cue across tasks. Results showed facilitatory processes without inhibition, though there was some variation by SOA and task. This is the first time facilitatory versus inhibitory processes have been directly investigated where eye contact is initiated prior to gaze shift. These dynamic stimuli allow a better understanding of how attention might be cued in more realistic environments.

Investigating age differences in the influence of joint attention on working memory

“…This situation is more akin to how gaze cues might be seen in real life where a person might turn their head to look at an item and others may follow the gaze through the direction of the head turn. Note that recent investigation using this dynamic gaze cue with a younger adult population showed a general facilitation effect on attention (Gregory, 2021). In experiment 2, only the eyes of the avatar move, allowing investigation of more subtle effects of gaze.…”

“…These avatars were recorded in the Unity game engine making the head turn movements described in the procedure, recordings were then used within PsychoPy3 to devise the online study presented via Pavlovia. We have previously demonstrated the effects of these cues on attention in a basic cuing paradigm (Gregory, 2021).…”

“…This allows us to use more realistic, dynamic stimuli which engage joint attention, i.e. look at the participant, prior to a gaze shift (see Gregory, 2021).…”

Look Into my “Virtual” Eyes: What Dynamic Virtual Agents add to the Realistic Study of Joint Attention

“…The VAs can be presented in fully immersive virtual systems through immersive VR headsets as well as through augmented virtual reality and finally through basic computer setups, each of which having pros and cons related to expense, portability and immersion (Pan and Hamilton, 2018). Importantly, even using VA-based stimuli (e.g., dynamic video recordings) in traditional screen-based studies offers significantly more social nuance and realism compared to using static images of disembodied heads (e. g., Gregory, 2021, see Box 1, panel C). Indeed, gaze is associated with an intent to act (Land and Tatler, 2009) and it is difficult to imagine a static head performing a goal directed action.…”

EEG alpha and theta signatures of socially and non-socially cued working memory in virtual reality

“…, 1999 ; Frischen et al. , 2007 ; Gregory, 2021 ; Gregory and Jackson, 2021 ) and for other non-social communicative cues such as arrows and directional words (e.g. Hommel et al.…”