The effect of social roles on gaze cue utilisation in a real-world collaboration

The effect of social roles on gaze cue utilisation in a real-world collaboration Ross G. Macdonald (rgmacdonald@dundee.ac.uk) School of Psychology, University of Dundee, Nethergate, Dundee, DD1 4HN, UK Benjamin W. Tatler (b.w.tatler@activevisionlab.org) School of Psychology, University of Dundee, Nethergate, Dundee, DD1 4HN, UK could slow down responses in a Posner (1980) task, suggesting that the artificial gaze cue stimuli automatically shifted attention away from the target. Variants of this study looking at eye movements have found that participants will also look in the direction of the distracting gaze cue, even though they know there is no reason to do so (Ricciardelli, Bricolo, Aglioti, & Chelazzi, 2002; Galfano et al, 2012). These findings have been used to suggest that humans are “hard-wired” to automatically follow the gaze cues of others (Emery, 2000). The above research shows that people look at eyes and follow gaze cues when viewing isolated static images of others. However, in the real world, gaze cues usually occur alongside spoken language. There appears to be an intimate link between gaze allocation and spoken language, with people making anticipatory eye movements to objects that relate to what they hear (Altmann & Kamide, 1999). Gaze cue utilisation in particular has been shown to be affected by spoken language; changing the syntactic structure of a sentence, whilst maintaining meaning changes the timing of gaze following (Knoeferle & Kreysa, 2012). Reciprocally, Stuadte and Crocker (2011) showed the gaze cues can affect the understanding of spoken language; participants were shown videos of a robot describing the spatial and featural relations between a series of visible objects, whilst providing gaze cues. The robot made mistakes in his descriptions that could have been corrected in two different ways. The experimenters found that participants would correct in the way that was congruent with the gaze cue, suggesting that they were inferring meaning from the robot’s gaze and assuming that the robot meant to refer to the object that it was gazing at. Given the effect gaze cues and language have on each other, it is important to use language in a paradigm investigating how gaze cues are used naturally in collaboration. As well as mostly occurring alongside language, all gaze cues in the real world are provided in a social context. When interacting with another, where we look can be affected by our proximity to this other person (Argyle & Dean, 1965). Social effects specifically on gaze seeking were investigated by Laidlaw, Foulsham, Kuhn and Kingstone (2011), who found that participants sitting in a waiting room were significantly more likely to look at a person on a monitor than the same person present in the room. Gallup et al (2012) found similar results for gaze following rather than seeking. They observed people walking past an attractive Abstract During collaboration, people communicate using verbal and non-verbal cues, including gaze cues. Social factors can affect gaze allocation, however most research on gaze cueing has not considered these factors. The presence of social roles was manipulated in a collaborative task whilst eye movements were measured. In pairs, participants worked together to make a cake. Half of the pairs were given roles (“Chef” or “Gatherer”) and the other half were not. Across all participants we found, contrary to the results of static image experiments, that participants spent very little time looking at each other, challenging the generalisability of the conclusions from lab-based paradigms. When given spoken instructions, listeners in the roles condition looked at the speaker significantly more than listeners in the no roles condition. We conclude that our tendency to seek the gaze cues of collaborators is affected either by our social perceptions of the collaborator or their perceived reliability. Keywords: eye movements; joint attention; real world; gaze cues; social interaction. Introduction When collaborating with another on a task, we need to communicate. As well as using spoken language, there are a number of non-verbal cues we can use, with the directional gaze cues given by the eyes being the most well-researched of these. Gaze cues are first used very early in life and continue to be given and followed throughout adulthood. People have a tendency to orient to and follow the gaze cues of others and can to do this with ease. However, there is evidence that the language accompanying a gaze cue and the social context of the cue can affect how people orient to and follow gaze cues. In the real world, gaze cues will always occur within a social context, yet this context is removed in most studies. The aim of the present study is to measure eye movements in a real-world setting to observe how the utilisation of gaze cues can be affected by social context in a natural collaboration. When viewing images of faces, people have a tendency to look at the eyes (Yarbus, 1967) and when viewing images of social scenes people will seek out faces and eyes (Birmingham, Bischoff & Kingstone, 2007; 2009) even when the person being fixated is not visually prominent and has no role for understanding the scene (Zwickel & Vo, 2010). As well as orienting to these cues, people show a tendency to follow them. Friesen and Kingstone (1998) showed that incongruent gaze cues presented at fixation

[1]  Benjamin W Tatler,et al.  Do as eye say: gaze cueing and language in a real-world social interaction. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[2]  Pia Knoeferle,et al.  Can Speaker Gaze Modulate Syntactic Structuring and Thematic Role Assignment during Spoken Sentence Comprehension? , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[3]  Iain D Couzin,et al.  The directional flow of visual information transfer between pedestrians , 2012, Biology Letters.

[4]  G. Galfano,et al.  Eye gaze cannot be ignored (but neither can arrows) , 2012, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  Salvatore Maria Aglioti,et al.  Follow My Eyes: The Gaze of Politicians Reflexively Captures the Gaze of Ingroup Voters , 2011, PloS one.

[6]  M. Crocker,et al.  Investigating joint attention mechanisms through spoken human–robot interaction , 2011, Cognition.

[7]  Nicola C. Anderson,et al.  Exploiting human sensitivity to gaze for tracking the eyes , 2011, Behavior research methods.

[8]  Kaitlin E W Laidlaw,et al.  Potential social interactions are important to social attention , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  Jan Zwickel,et al.  How the presence of persons biases eye movements , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[10]  A. Kingstone,et al.  Get real! Resolving the debate about equivalent social stimuli , 2009 .

[11]  Where Do We Look During Potentially Offensive Behavior? , 2008, Psychological science.

[12]  A. Kingstone,et al.  Why do we look at people's eyes? , 2007 .

[13]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Reliance on head versus eyes in the gaze following of great apes and human infants: the cooperative eye hypothesis. , 2007, Journal of human evolution.

[14]  N. Atkinson Follow My Eyes , 2006 .

[15]  L. Chelazzi,et al.  My eyes want to look where your eyes are looking: Exploring the tendency to imitate another individual's gaze , 2002, Neuroreport.

[16]  N. Emery,et al.  The eyes have it: the neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze , 2000, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[17]  G. Altmann,et al.  Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference , 1999, Cognition.

[18]  A. Kingstone,et al.  The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze , 1998 .

[19]  M. Posner,et al.  Orienting of Attention* , 1980, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[20]  A. L. I︠A︡rbus Eye Movements and Vision , 1967 .

[21]  A. L. Yarbus,et al.  Eye Movements and Vision , 1967, Springer US.

[22]  M. Argyle,et al.  EYE-CONTACT, DISTANCE AND AFFILIATION. , 1965, Sociometry.