Gaze Cues Influence the Allocation of Attention in Natural Scene Viewing

In two experiments we examined whether the allocation of attention in natural scene viewing is influenced by the gaze cues (head and eye direction) of an individual appearing in the scene. Each experiment employed a variant of the flicker paradigm in which alternating versions of a scene and a modified version of that scene were separated by a brief blank field. In Experiment 1, participants were able to detect the change made to the scene sooner when an individual appearing in the scene was gazing at the changing object than when the individual was absent, gazing straight ahead, or gazing at a nonchanging object. In addition, participants’ ability to detect change deteriorated linearly as the changing object was located progressively further from the line of regard of the gazer. Experiment 2 replicated this change detection advantage of gaze-cued objects in a modified procedure using more critical scenes, a forced-choice change/no-change decision, and accuracy as the dependent variable. These findings establish that in the perception of static natural scenes and in a change detection task, attention is preferentially allocated to objects that are the target of another's social attention.

[1]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Change-blindness as a result of ‘mudsplashes’ , 1999, Nature.

[2]  J. Henderson Human gaze control during real-world scene perception , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  Nirbhay N. Singh,et al.  Facial Expressions of Emotion , 1998 .

[4]  V. Bruce,et al.  Reflexive visual orienting in response to the social attention of others , 1999 .

[5]  J. Haxby,et al.  The distributed human neural system for face perception , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[6]  J. Eastwood,et al.  Differential attentional guidance by unattended faces expressing positive and negative emotion , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  E. Fox,et al.  Facial Expressions of Emotion: Are Angry Faces Detected More Efficiently? , 2000, Cognition & emotion.

[8]  Bonnie L. Angelone,et al.  The Relationship between Change Detection and Recognition of Centrally Attended Objects in Motion Pictures , 2003, Perception.

[9]  D. Simons,et al.  Failure to detect changes to attended objects in motion pictures , 1997 .

[10]  Christopher B. Currie,et al.  Visual stability across saccades while viewing complex pictures. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  D. Povinelli,et al.  Mindblindness. An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind Simon Baron-Cohen 1995 , 1996, Trends in Neurosciences.

[12]  A. Kingstone,et al.  Cognitive Ethology and exploring attention in real-world scenes , 2006, Brain Research.

[13]  Michael S. Ambinder,et al.  Change blindness , 1997, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[14]  A. Hollingworth Failures of retrieval and comparison constrain change detection in natural scenes. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  TO SEE OR NOT TO SEE: The Need for Attention to Perceive Changes in Scenes , 1997 .

[16]  S. Baron-Cohen Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind , 1997 .

[17]  J. Henderson,et al.  Accurate visual memory for previously attended objects in natural scenes , 2002 .

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

[19]  P. Sinha,et al.  The Role of Eyebrows in Face Recognition , 2003, Perception.

[20]  Ronald A. Rensink The Dynamic Representation of Scenes , 2000 .

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

[22]  N. Lavie,et al.  Changing Faces: A Detection Advantage in the Flicker Paradigm , 2001, Psychological science.