Top

Gepubliceerd in:

25-10-2019 | Original Article

Gaze interaction: anticipation-based control of the gaze of others

Auteurs: Eva Riechelmann, Tim Raettig, Anne Böckler, Lynn Huestegge

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 1/2021

Abstract

Gaze control is an important component of social communication, e.g. to direct someone’s attention. While previous research on gaze interaction has mainly focused on the gaze recipient by asking how humans respond to perceived gaze (gaze cueing), we address the actor’s point of view by asking how actors control their own eye movements to trigger a gaze response in others. Specifically, we investigate whether gaze responses of a (virtual) interaction partner are anticipated and thereby affect oculomotor control. Building on a pre-established paradigm for addressing anticipation-based motor control in non-social contexts, participants were instructed to alternately look at two faces on the screen, which consistently responded to the participant’s gaze with either direct or averted gaze. We tested whether this gaze response of the targeted face is already anticipated prior to the participant’s eye movement by displaying a task-irrelevant visual stimulus (prior to the execution of the target saccade), which was either congruent, incongruent, or unrelated to the subsequently perceived gaze. In addition to schematic and photographic faces, we included conditions involving changes in non-social objects. Overall, we observed congruency effects (as an indicator of anticipation of the virtual other’s gaze response to one’s own gaze) for both social and non-social stimuli, but only when the perceived changes were sufficiently salient. Temporal dynamics of the congruency effects were comparable for social and non-social stimuli, suggesting that similar mechanisms underlie anticipation-based oculomotor control. The results support recent theoretical claims emphasizing the role of anticipation-based action control in social interaction.

vorige artikel Working memory affects anticipatory behavior during implicit pattern learning

volgende artikel Mood state and conflict adaptation: an update and a diffusion model analysis

A stronger, more natural form of controlling another's gaze with our own gaze would probably be a setting in which a participant freely chooses to move his/her eyes (instead of being instructed by means of an auditory imperative stimulus) in order to guide the gaze of another person into a certain direction or to a certain object. However, the present study was based on a previous established paradigm and designed to address anticipation-based oculomotor control under maximally controlled conditions.

Note that we recruited 105 participants, but excluded data of four participants with an unusual high error rate (> 30% in at least one cell of the design). Additionally, the data of one participant was removed from analysis due to an eye tracking error.

For the sake of completeness, we also report the respective analyses for Experiments 1, 3 and 5. In Experiment 1 (upright face stimuli), neither the effect of experiment half, F(1, 19) = 2.57, p = 0.125, ƞ _p ² = 0.12, nor the three-way interaction of congruency, SOA, and experiment half, F(2, 38) = 1.28, p = 0.290, ƞ _p ² = 0.06, or any other relevant interaction revealed significant results (all Fs < 1). In Experiment 3 (inverted face stimuli) participants responded faster in the first versus second half of the experiment, F(1, 19) = 11.77, p = 0.003, ƞ _p ² = 0.38. None of the other relevant interactions were significant, neither the interaction of congruency and experiment half, F(2, 38) = 1.85, p = 0.172, ƞ _p ² = 0.08, nor the three-way interaction of congruency, direction, and experiment half, F(2, 38) = 1.66, p = 0.204, ƞ _p ² = 0.08, or the interaction of congruency, SOA, and experiment half, F(2, 38) = 2.36, p = 0.108, ƞ _p ² = 0.11. The four-way interaction was not significant, F < 1. In Experiment 5 (scrambled face stimuli) no effect of experiment half was present, F(1, 19) = 2.30, p = 0.146, ƞ _p ² = 0.11. The four-way interaction was significant, F(2, 38) = 3.54, p = 0.039, ƞ _p ² = 0.16. None of the remaining relevant interaction effects was significant (all Fs < 1, except for the three-way interaction of congruency, SOA, and experiment half, F(2, 38) = 2.96, p = 0.064, ƞ _p ² = 0.14).

Please note that none of the statistical comparisons revealed significant results (all Fs < 1) when conducting a two-way repeated measures ANOVA with the factors task-irrelevant stimulus (direct gaze vs. averted gaze direction in Experiments 1 and 3; central vs. lateral effect direction in Experiment 5) and congruency (congruent vs. incongruent) separately for Experiments 1, 3, and 5.

Note that we only report statistical comparisons involving the factor experiment for the between-experiment comparisons.

We additionally addressed our claim that overall saliency of the gaze is reduced for photographic versus non-photographic stimuli empirically: In two short additional experiments, we compared the detection rate of direct vs. averted (left/right) gaze for photographic (upright and inverted) face stimuli to the detection rate of direct vs. averted (left/right) gaze for schematic face and central vs. lateral effects for abstract stimuli using the stimulus material from the current study. Participants either saw a stimulus presented for 35 ms at the screen center followed by a random pattern mask (scrambled version of the preceding stimulus) (Experiment A), or saw a printout of the stimuli (stimulus width × height: 2.0 cm × 2.6 cm) at a fixed viewing distance that was large enough to prevent perfect stimulus classification (3.35 m, Experiment B). Participants had to indicate the (gaze) orientation of the presented stimulus (left vs. direct/central vs. right, using randomized stimulus placement). The results confirmed our hypothesis that (gaze) orientation saliency is higher for non-photographic stimuli compared to photographic stimuli, as detection rate was higher for the abstract and schematic face stimuli compared to the photographic upright and inverted stimuli, t(19) = 6.85, p < 0.001, d = 1.53 (in Experiment A), and t(19) = 6.51, p < 0.001, d = 1.46 (in Experiment B).

Badets, A., Koch, I., & Toussaint, L. (2013). Role of an ideomotor mechanism in number processing. Experimental Psychology, 60(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000171.CrossRefPubMed

Bertelson, P. (1967). The time course of preparation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19(3), 272–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640746708400102.CrossRefPubMed

Bertelson, P., & Tisseyre, F. (1969). The time-course of preparation: Confirmatory results with visual and auditory warning signals. Acta Psychologica, 30, 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(69)90047-X.CrossRef

Birmingham, E., Ristic, J., & Kingstone, A. (2012). Investigating social attention: A case for increasing stimulus complexity in the laboratory. In J. A. Burack, J. T. Enns, & N. A. Fox (Eds.), Cognitive Neuroscience, Development, and Psychopathology (pp. 251–276). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195315455.003.0010

Böckler, A., van der Wel, R. P. R. D., & Welsh, T. N. (2014). Catching eyes: Effects of social and nonsocial cues on attention capture. Psychological Science, 25(3), 720–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613516147.CrossRefPubMed

Böckler, A., van der Wel, R. P. R. D., & Welsh, T. N. (2015). Eyes only? Perceiving eye contact is neither sufficient nor necessary for attentional capture by face direction. Acta Psychologica, 160, 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.07.009.CrossRefPubMed

Bompas, A., Hedge, C., & Sumner, P. (2017). Speeded saccadic and manual visuo-motor decisions: Distinct processes but same principles. Cognitive Psychology, 94, 26–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.02.002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Boyer, T. W., & Wang, M. (2018). Direct gaze, eye movements, and covert and overt social attention processes. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 80(7), 1654–1659. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1590-z.CrossRef

Bruce, V., & Langton, S. (1994). The use of pigmentation and shading information in recognising the sex and identities of faces. Perception, 23(7), 803–822. https://doi.org/10.1068/p230803.CrossRefPubMed

Bucker, B., Silvis, J. D., Donk, M., & Theeuwes, J. (2015). Reward modulates oculomotor competition between differently valued stimuli. Vision Research, 108, 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2015.01.020.CrossRefPubMed

Dignath, D., Pfister, R., Eder, A. B., Kiesel, A., & Kunde, W. (2014). Representing the hyphen in action-effect associations: Automatic acquisition and bidirectional retrieval of action-effect intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(6), 1701–1712. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000022.CrossRefPubMed

Driver, J., Davis, G., Ricciardelli, P., Kidd, P., Maxwell, E., & Baron-Cohen, S. (1999). Gaze perception triggers reflexive visuospatial orienting. Vis Cognit, 6(5), 509–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/135062899394920.CrossRef

Dunne, S., Ellison, A., & Smith, D. T. (2015). Rewards modulate saccade latency but not exogenous spatial attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1080. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01080.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(1), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.1.229.CrossRefPubMed

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.CrossRefPubMed

Findlay, J. M., & Walker, R. (1999). A model of saccade generation based on parallel processing and competitive inhibition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 661–674.CrossRef

Friesen, C. K., & Kingstone, A. (1998). The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(3), 490–495. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208827.CrossRef

Frischen, A., Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). Gaze cueing of attention: Visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 694–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.694.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Graefe, T. M., & Vaughan, J. (1978). Saccadic and manual reaction times to stimuli initiated by eye or finger movements. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 11(2), 97–99. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03336776.CrossRef

Harleß, E. (1861). Der Apparat des Willens [The apparatus of the will]. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 38, 50–73.

Hayward, D. A., Voorhies, W., Morris, J. L., Capozzi, F., & Ristic, J. (2017). Staring reality in the face: A comparison of social attention across laboratory and real world measures suggests little common ground. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(3), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000117.CrossRefPubMed

Heider, F. (1977). Psychologie der interpersonalen Beziehungen [The psychology of interpersonal relations] (G. Deffner, Trans.). Stuttgart, Germany: Klett. (Original work published 1958)

Herbart, J. F. (1825). Psychologie als Wissenschaft neu gegründet auf Erfahrung, Metaphysik, und Mathematik. [Psychology as a science newly founded on experience, metaphysicy, and mathematics]. Königsberg: Unzer.

Herwig, A. (2015). Linking perception and action by structure or process? Toward an integrative perspective. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 52, 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.02.013.CrossRefPubMed

Herwig, A., & Horstmann, G. (2011). Action-effect associations revealed by eye movements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(3), 531–537. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0063-3.CrossRef

Herwig, A., & Schneider, W. X. (2014). Predicting object features across saccades: Evidence from object recognition and visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(5), 1903–1922. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036781.CrossRef

Herwig, A., & Waszak, F. (2012). Action-effect bindings and ideomotor learning in intention- and stimulus-based actions. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 444. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00444.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hickey, C., & van Zoest, W. (2012). Reward creates oculomotor salience. Current Biology: CB, 22(7), R219–R220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.02.007.CrossRefPubMed

Hietanen, J. K., & Leppänen, J. M. (2003). Does facial expression affect attention orienting by gaze direction cues? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(6), 1228–1243. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.6.1228.CrossRefPubMed

Hommel, B., Alonso, D., & Fuentes, L. (2003). Acquisition and generalization of action effects. Visual Cognition, 10(8), 965–986. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280344000176.CrossRef

Huestegge, L. (2011). The role of saccades in multitasking: Towards an output-related view of eye movements. Psychological Research, 75(6), 452–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0352-5.CrossRefPubMed

Huestegge, L., & Adam, J. J. (2011). Oculomotor interference during manual response preparation: Evidence from the response-cueing paradigm. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 73(3), 702–707. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-010-0051-0.CrossRef

Huestegge, L., Herbort, O., Gosch, N., Kunde, W., & Pieczykolan, A. (2019). Free-choice saccades and their underlying determinants: Explorations of high-level voluntary oculomotor control. Journal of Vision, 19(3), 14. https://doi.org/10.1167/19.3.14.CrossRefPubMed

Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2010). Fixation disengagement enhances peripheral perceptual processing: Evidence for a perceptual gap effect. Experimental Brain Research, 201(4), 631–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-009-2080-2.CrossRefPubMed

Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2013). Constraints in task-set control: Modality dominance patterns among effector systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 633–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030156.CrossRef

Huestegge, L., & Kreutzfeldt, M. (2012). Action effects in saccade control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(2), 198–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0215-5.CrossRef

Huestegge, L., Pieczykolan, A., & Koch, I. (2014). Talking while looking: On the encapsulation of output system representations. Cognitive Psychology, 73, 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.06.001.CrossRefPubMed

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Henry Holt.

Joyce, K., Schenke, K., Bayliss, A., & Bach, P. (2016). Looking ahead: Anticipatory cueing of attention to objects others will look at. Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(1–4), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2015.1053443.CrossRefPubMed

Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2004). Variable action effects: Response control by context-specific effect anticipations. Psychological Research, 68(2–3), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-003-0152-7.CrossRefPubMed

Kingstone, A., Friesen, C. K., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (2000). Reflexive joint attention depends on lateralized cortical connections. Psychological Science, 11(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00232.CrossRefPubMed

Kingstone, A., & Klein, R. M. (1993). Visual offsets facilitate saccadic latency: Does predisengagement of visuospatial attention mediate this gap effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 19(6), 1251–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.19.6.1251.CrossRefPubMed

Kuhn, G., & Benson, V. (2007). The influence of eye-gaze and arrow pointing distractor cues on voluntary eye movements. Perception & Psychophysics, 69(6), 966–971. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193934.CrossRef

Kuhn, G., & Kingstone, A. (2009). Look away! Eyes and arrows engage oculomotor responses automatically. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 71(2), 314–327. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.2.314.CrossRef

Kunde, W. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(2), 387–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.2.387.CrossRefPubMed

Kunde, W., Weller, L., & Pfister, R. (2018). Sociomotor action control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(3), 917–931. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1316-6.CrossRef

Lachat, F., Conty, L., Hugueville, L., & George, N. (2012). Gaze cueing effect in a face-to-face situation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36(3), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-012-0133-x.CrossRef

Langton, S. R., & Bruce, V. (1999). Reflexive visual orienting in response to the social attention of others. Visual Cognition, 6(5), 541–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/135062899394939.CrossRef

Lauwereyns, J., Watanabe, K., Coe, B., & Hikosaka, O. (2002). A neural correlate of response bias in monkey caudate nucleus. Nature, 418(6896), 413–417. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature00892.CrossRefPubMed

Los, S. A., & Schut, M. L. J. (2008). The effective time course of preparation. Cognitive Psychology, 57(1), 20–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.11.001.CrossRefPubMed

Mansfield, E., Farroni, T., & Johnson, M. (2003). Does gaze perception facilitate overt orienting? Visual Cognition, 10(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/713756671.CrossRef

McCoy, B., & Theeuwes, J. (2016). Effects of reward on oculomotor control. Journal of Neurophysiology, 116(5), 2453–2466. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00498.2016.CrossRefPubMed

Milstein, D. M., & Dorris, M. C. (2007). The influence of expected value on saccadic preparation. The Journal of Neuroscience, 27(18), 4810–4818. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0577-07.2007.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Mitchell, J. P. (2009). Social psychology as a natural kind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(6), 246–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.03.008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Näsänen, R., Ojanpää, H., & Kojo, I. (2001). Effect of stimulus contrast on performance and eye movements in visual search. Vision Research, 41(14), 1817–1824. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00056-6.CrossRefPubMed

Pfeiffer, U. J., Vogeley, K., & Schilbach, L. (2013). From gaze cueing to dual eye-tracking: Novel approaches to investigate the neural correlates of gaze in social interaction. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 37, 2516–2528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.07.017.CrossRefPubMed

Pfeuffer, C. U., Kiesel, A., & Huestegge, L. (2016). A look into the future: Spontaneous anticipatory saccades reflect processes of anticipatory action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(11), 1530–1547. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000224.CrossRef

Pfister, R. (2019). Effect-based action control with body-related effects: Implications for em-pirical approaches to ideomotor action control. Psychological Review, 126(1), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000140.CrossRefPubMed

Pfister, R., Dignath, D., Hommel, B., & Kunde, W. (2013). It takes two to imitate: Anticipation and imitation in social interaction. Psychological Science, 24(10), 2117–2121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613489139.CrossRefPubMed

Pfister, R., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2011). Learning at any rate: Action-effect learning for stimulus-based actions. Psychological Research, 75(1), 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-010-0288-1.CrossRefPubMed

Pfister, R., Weller, L., Dignath, D., & Kunde, W. (2017). What or when? The impact of anticipated social action effects is driven by action-effect compatibility, not delay. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 79(7), 2132–2142. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1371-0.CrossRef

Pieczykolan, A., & Huestegge, L. (2014). Oculomotor dominance in multitasking: Mechanisms of conflict resolution in cross-modal action. Journal of Vision, 14(13), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1167/14.13.18.CrossRef

Pieczykolan, A., & Huestegge, L. (2017). Cross-modal action complexity: Action- and rule-related memory retrieval in dual-response control. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 529. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00529.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Redcay, E., Dodell-Feder, D., Pearrow, M. J., Mavros, P. L., Kleiner, M., Gabrieli, J. D. E., & Saxe, R. (2010). Live face-to-face interaction during fMRI: A new tool for social cognitive neuroscience. NeuroImage, 50(4), 1639–1647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.01.052.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ricciardelli, P., Baylis, G., & Driver, J. (2000). The positive and negative of human expertise in gaze perception. Cognition, 77(1), B1–B14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00092-5.CrossRefPubMed

Riechelmann, E., Pieczykolan, A., Horstmann, G., Herwig, A., & Huestegge, L. (2017). Spatio-temporal dynamics of action-effect associations in oculomotor control. Acta Psychologica, 180, 130–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.09.003.CrossRefPubMed

Riechelmann, E., Weller, L., Huestegge, L., Böckler, A., Pfister, R. (2019). Revisiting intersubjective action-effect binding: No evidence for social moderators. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01715-6

Ristic, J., Friesen, C. K., & Kingstone, A. (2002). Are eyes special? It depends on how you look at it. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 507–513. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196306.CrossRef

Rolfs, M., Jonikaitis, D., Deubel, H., & Cavanagh, P. (2011). Predictive remapping of attention across eye movements. Nature Neuroscience, 14(2), 252–256. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2711.CrossRefPubMed

Rothkirch, M., Ostendorf, F., Sax, A.-L., & Sterzer, P. (2013). The influence of motivational salience on saccade latencies. Experimental Brain Research, 224(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3284-4.CrossRefPubMed

Saslow, M. G. (1967). Latency for Saccadic Eye Movement. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 57(8), 1030. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.57.001030.CrossRefPubMed

Sato, A., & Itakura, S. (2013). Intersubjective action-effect binding: Eye contact modulates acquisition of bidirectional association between our and others’ actions. Cognition, 127(3), 383–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.010.CrossRefPubMed

Schilbach, L. (2014). On the relationship of online and offline social cognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 278. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00278.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Reddy, V., Costall, A., Bente, G., Schlicht, T., & Vogeley, K. (2013). Toward a second-person neuroscience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 393–414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000660.CrossRef

Schütz, A. C., Trommershäuser, J., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2012). Dynamic integration of information about salience and value for saccadic eye movements. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(19), 7547–7552. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1115638109.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Senju, A., & Johnson, M. H. (2009). The eye contact effect: Mechanisms and development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(3), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.11.009.CrossRefPubMed

Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 943–974. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020541.CrossRefPubMed

Slobodenyuk, N. (2016). Towards cognitively grounded gaze-controlled interfaces. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 20(6), 1035–1047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-016-0970-4.CrossRef

Sprague, N., & Ballard, D. (2003). Eye movements for reward maximization. In S. Thrun, L. K. Saul, & B. Scholkopf (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 1467–1474). Boston, MA: MIT Press.

Stephenson, L. J., Edwards, S. G., Howard, E. E., & Bayliss, A. P. (2018). Eyes that bind us: Gaze leading induces an implicit sense of agency. Cognition, 172, 124–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.12.011CrossRefPubMed

Theeuwes, J., & Belopolsky, A. V. (2012). Reward grabs the eye: Oculomotor capture by rewarding stimuli. Vision Research, 74, 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2012.07.024.CrossRefPubMed

Tipples, J. (2002). Eye gaze is not unique: Automatic orienting in response to uninformative arrows. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 314–318.CrossRef

Tipples, J. (2005). Orienting to eye gaze and face processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(5), 843–856. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.843.CrossRefPubMed

Van der Wel, R. P., Welsh, T., & Böckler, A. (2018). Talking heads or talking eyes? Effects of head orientation and sudden onset gaze cues on attention capture. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 80(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1462-y.CrossRef

Vecera, S. P., & Johnson, M. H. (1995). Gaze detection and the cortical processing of faces: Evidence from infants and adults. Visual Cognition, 2(1), 59–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506289508401722.CrossRef

Verschoor, S. A., Spape, M., Biro, S., & Hommel, B. (2013). From outcome prediction to action selection: Developmental change in the role of action-effect bindings. Developmental Science, 16(6), 801–814. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12085.CrossRefPubMed

Watanabe, K., Lauwereyns, J., & Hikosaka, O. (2003). Effects of motivational conflicts on visually elicited saccades in monkeys. Experimental Brain Research, 152(3), 361–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1555-9.CrossRefPubMed

Yin, R. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 81(1), 141–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027474.CrossRef

Zaki, J., Kallman, S., Wimmer, G. E., Ochsner, K., & Shohamy, D. (2016). Social cognition as reinforcement learning: Feedback modulates emotion inference. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 28(9), 1270–1282. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00978.CrossRefPubMed

Zaki, J., & Ochsner, K. (2009). The need for a cognitive neuroscience of naturalistic social cognition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1167, 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04601.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ziessler, M., & Nattkemper, D. (2011). The temporal dynamics of effect anticipation in course of action planning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 64(7), 1305–1326. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.553067

Titel: Gaze interaction: anticipation-based control of the gaze of others
Auteurs: Eva Riechelmann
Tim Raettig
Anne Böckler
Lynn Huestegge
Publicatiedatum: 25-10-2019
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 1/2021
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01257-4

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2021

Endogenous control of task-order preparation in variable dual tasks

The effect of unitization on associative recognition was not moderated by the unitization–congruence between original and rearranged picture pairs (UC) for picture stimuli

Peripersonal space in social context is modulated by action reward, but differently in males and females

Working memory affects anticipatory behavior during implicit pattern learning

Representational momentum in adolescent dancers

The in–out effect: examining the role of perceptual fluency in the preference for words with inward-wandering consonantal articulation