Task‐irrelevant own‐race faces capture attention: Eye‐tracking evidence

Rong, Cao; Wang, Shuzhen; Cong-quan, Rao; Fu, Jia

doi:10.1111/sjop.12027

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, a subset of individuals showed evidence of attentional withdrawal (16%) while others showed attentional attraction (29%). As noted, attentional attraction is consistent with the task performance one would expect based on the bulk of the social attention and line bisection literatures ( Friesen and Kingstone, 1998 ; Theeuwes and Van der Stigchel, 2006 ; Garza et al, 2008 ; Toba et al, 2011 ), suggesting that for these participants, the co-actor might impact the attention system through similar mechanisms as those involved for other cue types. Attentional withdrawal, on the other hand, is consistent with the social discomfort hypothesis: that attention is withdrawn from nearby others under conditions of personal space invasion ( Terry and Lower, 1979 ; Szpak et al, 2016 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Moreover, social stimuli including the eyes are preferentially looked at when images are viewed ( Birmingham et al, 2008 , 2009 ; Foulsham et al, 2011 ); and when a visible experimenter was used as a distractor in a line bisection task, a perceptual-attentional bias in line bisection toward the experimenter was documented ( Garza et al, 2008 ). Thus, the consensus across a large body of work is that attention shifted by and toward social information within a scene ( Friesen and Kingstone, 1998 ; Driver et al, 1999 ; Vuilleumier, 2000 ; Kuhn and Land, 2006 ; Theeuwes and Van der Stigchel, 2006 ; Birmingham et al, 2009 ; Laidlaw et al, 2012 ; Rösler et al, 2017 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Influence of Co-action on a Simple Attention Task: A Shift Back to the Status Quo

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a growing consensus among researchers that a complete description of human attention and action should include information about how these processes are informed by social context. When we actively engage in co-action with others, there are characteristic changes in action kinematics, reaction time, search behavior, as well as other processes (see Sebanz et al., 2003; Becchio et al., 2010; Wahn et al., 2017). It is now important to identify precisely what is shared between co-actors in these joint action situations. One group recently found that participants seem to withdraw their attention away from a partner and toward themselves when co-engaged in a line bisection judgment task (Szpak et al., 2016). This effect runs counter to the typical finding that attention is drawn toward social items in the environment (Birmingham et al., 2008, 2009; Foulsham et al., 2011). As such, the result suggests that joint action can uniquely lead to the withdrawal of covert attention in a manner detectable by a line bisection task performed on a computer screen. This task could therefore act as a simple and elegant measure of interpersonal effects on attention within particular pairs of participants. For this reason, the present work attempted to replicate and extend the finding that attention, as measured by a line-bisection task, is withdrawn away from nearby co-actors. Overall our study found no evidence of social modulation of covert attention. This suggests that the line bisection task may not be sensitive enough to reliably measure interpersonal attention effects – at least when one looks at overall group performance. However, our data also hint at the possibility that the effect of nearby others on the distribution of attention may be modulated by individual differences.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Co-action on a Simple Attention Task: A Shift Back to the Status Quo

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies have extensively studied these types of stimulus characteristics. Faces are widely used in object WM (Serences et al, 2004; Theeuwes and Stigchel, 2006; Joshua et al, 2007; Jiang et al, 2016), and color, shape, or direction of motion are extensively applied in spatial WM (Bichot et al, 2005; Heuer and Schubö, 2016). Previous research has paid little attention to the differences between these two types of tasks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Different Brain Mechanisms of Object and Spatial Working Memory: Voxel-Based Morphometry and Resting-State Functional Connectivity

Ren

Zhang

et al. 2019

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In working memory (WM), the ability to concurrently integrate different types of information and to maintain or manipulate them promotes the flow of ongoing tasks. WM is a key component of normal human cognition. In this study, we applied a combined voxel-based morphometry (VBM) and resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) analysis to investigate the relationship between the ability of object and spatial working memory (WM), and regional gray matter density (GMD), as well as intrinsic functional connectivity. The VBM analysis showed a positive correlation between the individual difference of object WM and GMD in the right middle occipital gyrus (MOG) and the left superior temporal gyrus (STG), which are responsible for coding object information and processing the shape of an object. The individual difference of the spatial WM was positively related to GMD in the right middle frontal gyrus (MFG) located in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC), which confirmed that it is an important region for memory stores and maintains WM spatial representations. Further functional connectivity analysis revealed that the individual difference of object WM was significantly correlated with the rsFC of right intraparietal sulcus (IPS) – left postcentral gyrus (PostCG)/right precentral gyrus (PreCG)/left Supplementary Motor Area (SMA). While the capacity of spatial WM was significantly associated with the FC strength of the left dlPFC – left precuneus, right dlPFC – right MFG, and the left superior frontal sulcus (SFS) – left SMA/ right inferior parietal lobe (IPL). Our findings suggest that object WM is associated with the structure and functional organization of the brain regions involved in the ventral pathway (occipital – temporal regions) and the capacity of spatial WM is related to the dorsal pathway (frontal – parietal regions).

show abstract

“…Emotions and moods contribute to a human’s decision-making process, which can result in either positive or negative consequences for subsequent behavior. Furthermore, face perception is treated as an advanced visual detection skill in humans (Theeuwes and Van der Stigchel, 2006). The results of empirical studies have evidenced that two personality traits, anxiety and aggression, are especially associated with biases involved in perceiving emotional events (Pishyar et al, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuroticism and Frontal EEG Asymmetry Correlated With Dynamic Facial Emotional Processing in Adolescents

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this research was to investigate the link between resting frontal EEG asymmetry, neuroticism and the valence of emotional face processing in adolescents. Fifty right-handed adolescents (50% male; mean age = 14.20, SD = 1.97) were selected from schools in Mashhad. In order to investigate variables, we used BFQ-C, ADFES-BIV, and EEG. All data were analyzed using SPSS 22. The results showed that neuroticism correlates with the valences of fear, disgust, sadness, and surprise, but not with happiness, anger, and neutral faces. Furthermore, it was found that N was significantly positively correlated with mid-frontal asymmetry (F3–F4), and the lateral-frontal (F7–F8), whereas no correlation was found between N and frontal pole (Fp1–Fp2). We found significant negative correlations between the valence of fear, Fp1–Fp2, F3–F4, and F7–F8. The interaction findings revealed that neuroticism∗mid-frontal asymmetry can significantly affect the valence of fear. Therefore, neuroticism and mid-frontal EEG asymmetry may serve as a risk indicator for psychopathology.

show abstract

Task‐irrelevant own‐race faces capture attention: Eye‐tracking evidence

Cited by 11 publications

References 29 publications

The Influence of Co-action on a Simple Attention Task: A Shift Back to the Status Quo

The Influence of Co-action on a Simple Attention Task: A Shift Back to the Status Quo

The Different Brain Mechanisms of Object and Spatial Working Memory: Voxel-Based Morphometry and Resting-State Functional Connectivity

Neuroticism and Frontal EEG Asymmetry Correlated With Dynamic Facial Emotional Processing in Adolescents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About