Typical visual search performance and atypical gaze behaviors in response to faces in Williams syndrome

Abstract

BackgroundEvidence indicates that individuals with Williams syndrome (WS) exhibit atypical attentional characteristics when viewing faces. However, the dynamics of visual attention captured by faces remain unclear, especially when explicit attentional forces are present. To clarify this, we introduced a visual search paradigm and assessed how the relative strength of visual attention captured by a face and explicit attentional control changes as search progresses.MethodsParticipants (WS and controls) searched for a target (butterfly) within an array of distractors, which sometimes contained an upright face. We analyzed reaction time and location of the first fixation—which reflect the attentional profile at the initial stage—and fixation durations. These features represent aspects of attention at later stages of visual search. The strength of visual attention captured by faces and explicit attentional control (toward the butterfly) was characterized by the frequency of first fixations on a face or butterfly and on the duration of face or butterfly fixations.ResultsAlthough reaction time was longer in all groups when faces were present, and visual attention was not dominated by faces in any group during the initial stages of the search, when faces were present, attention to faces dominated in the WS group during the later search stages. Furthermore, for the WS group, reaction time correlated with eye-movement measures at different stages of searching such that longer reaction times were associated with longer face-fixations, specifically at the initial stage of searching. Moreover, longer reaction times were associated with longer face-fixations at the later stages of searching, while shorter reaction times were associated with longer butterfly fixations.ConclusionsThe relative strength of attention captured by faces in people with WS is not observed at the initial stage of searching but becomes dominant as the search progresses. Furthermore, although behavioral responses are associated with some aspects of eye movements, they are not as sensitive as eye-movement measurements themselves at detecting atypical attentional characteristics in people with WS.

Intact attentional orienting towards inverted faces revealed by both manual responses and eye‐movement measurement in individuals with Williams syndrome

“…In our previous study (Hirai et al . in preparation), we found a significant negative correlation between fixation–duration proportion for upright faces and RCPM scores, but no significant correlation with chronological age. In contrast to those findings, we did not find a significant correlation between the fixation–duration proportion for inverted faces and RCPM scores in the current study.…”

“…The current finding contrasts with our previous findings regarding the atypical attention towards upright faces in individuals with WS (Hirai et al . in preparation). Here, we did not find that WS individuals had atypical gaze responses towards the inverted faces.…”

“…Therefore, people with WS less directed their social attention to inverted faces as much as they do to upright faces (Hirai et al . in preparation). This notion is consistent with a previous behavioural study in which no significant difference in reaction time was observed between WS and MA groups when participants searched for an upright face in an array of inverted faces (Riby et al .…”

“…In our previous study (Hirai et al . in preparation), we sought to reveal the dynamics of bottom‐up attention towards target‐unrelated upright faces in individuals with WS, especially when top‐down control is present (i.e. the target is present).…”

Developmental changes in orienting towards faces: A behavioral and eye-tracking study

“…We also observed that the looking time proportion for face stimuli was significantly longer than that for objects across all ages, consistent with previous studies that utilized an identical experimental paradigm (Hirai, et al, 2016a, 2016b). Therefore, the looking time proportion reflected the attentional profile at the later period of searching and did not differ across groups.…”