If not When, then Where? Ignoring Temporal Information Eliminates Reflexive but not Volitional Spatial Orienting.

A tremendous amount of research has been devoted to understanding how attention can be committed to space or time. Until recently, relatively little research has examined how attention to these two domains combine. The present study addressed this issue. We examined how implicitly manipulating whether participants used a cue to orient attention in time impacts reflexive or volitional shifts in spatial attention. Specifically, participants made speeded manual responses to the detection of a peripherally presented target that appeared either 100, 500, or 1000 ms after the onset of a central cue. Cues were either spatially non-predictive arrows (p = 0.50) or spatially-predictive (p = 0.80) letter cues. Whereas arrow cues can reflexively orient spatial attention even when non-predictive of a target's spatial location, letters only orient spatial attention when they reliably predict a target location, i.e., the shift is volitional. Further, in one task, a target was presented on every trial, thereby encouraging participants to use the temporal information conveyed by the cue to prepare for the appearance of the target. In another task, 25% of trials contained no target, implicitly discouraging participants from using the cue to direct attention in time. Results indicate that when temporal information is reliable and therefore volitionally processed, then spatial cuing effects emerge regardless of whether attention is oriented reflexively or volitionally. However, when temporal information is unreliable, spatial cuing effects only emerge when spatial cue information is reliable, i.e., when spatial attention is volitionally shifted. Reflexive cues do not elicit spatial orienting when their temporal utility is reduced. These results converge on the notion that reflexive shifts of spatial attention are sensitive to implicit changes in a non-spatial domain, whereas explicit volitional shifts in spatial attention are not.

Fixations to the eyes aids in facial encoding; covertly attending to the eyes does not.

When looking at images of faces, people will often focus their fixations on the eyes. It has previously been demonstrated that the eyes convey important information that may improve later facial recognition. Whether this advantage requires that the eyes be fixated, or merely attended to covertly (i.e. while looking elsewhere), is unclear from previous work. While attending to the eyes covertly without fixating them may be sufficient, the act of using overt attention to fixate the eyes may improve the processing of important details used for later recognition. In the present study, participants were shown a series of faces and, in Experiment 1, asked to attend to them normally while avoiding looking at either the eyes or, as a control, the mouth (overt attentional avoidance condition); or in Experiment 2 fixate the center of the face while covertly attending to either the eyes or the mouth (covert attention condition). After the first phase, participants were asked to perform an old/new face recognition task. We demonstrate that a) when fixations to the eyes are avoided during initial viewing then subsequent face discrimination suffers, and b) covert attention to the eyes alone is insufficient to improve face discrimination performance. Together, these findings demonstrate that fixating the eyes provides an encoding advantage that is not availed by covert attention alone.

Eye contact affects attention more than arousal as revealed by prospective time estimation.

Eye contact can both increase arousal and engage attention. Because these two changes impact time estimation differently, we were able to use a prospective time estimation task to assess the relative changes in arousal and attention during eye contact. Pairs of participants made a 1-minute prospective time estimate while sitting side-by-side and performing three different gaze trials: looking at the wall away from their partner (baseline/away trials), looking at their partner's profile (profile trials), or making eye contact with their partner (eye contact trials). We found that participants produced significantly longer estimates when they were engaged in eye contact, more so than when they looked at another person's profile or baseline. As research has shown that people produce shorter estimates during arousing events and longer estimates when attention is captured, we attribute this difference to the attention-demanding process of interacting with another person, via mutual eye contact, over and above any changes in arousal.

Looking away: distractor influences on saccadic trajectory and endpoint in prosaccade and antisaccade tasks.

Successful target selection often occurs concurrently with distractor inhibition. A better understanding of the former thus requires a thorough study of the competition that arises between target and distractor representations. In the present study, we explore whether the presence of a distractor influences saccade processing via interfering with visual target and/or saccade goal representations. To do this, we asked participants to make either pro- or antisaccade eye movements to a target and measured the change in their saccade trajectory and landing position (collectively referred to as deviation) in response to distractors placed near or far from the saccade goal. The use of an antisaccade paradigm may help to distinguish between stimulus- and goal-related distractor interference, as unlike with prosaccades, these two features are dissociated in space when making a goal-directed antisaccade response away from a visual target stimulus. The present results demonstrate that for both pro- and antisaccades, distractors near the saccade goal elicited the strongest competition, as indicated by greater saccade trajectory deviation and landing position error. Though distractors far from the saccade goal elicited, on average, greater deviation away in antisaccades than in prosaccades, a time-course analysis revealed a significant effect of far-from-goal distractors in prosaccades as well. Considered together, the present findings support the view that goal-related representations most strongly influence the saccade metrics tested, though stimulus-related representations may play a smaller role in determining distractor-based interference effects on saccade execution under certain circumstances. Further, the results highlight the advantage of considering temporal changes in distractor-based interference.

A fresh look at saccadic trajectories and task irrelevant stimuli: Social relevance matters.

A distractor placed nearby a saccade target will cause interference during saccade planning and execution, and as a result will cause the saccade's trajectory to curve in a systematic way. It has been demonstrated that making a distractor more task-relevant, for example by increasing its similarity to the target, will increase the interference it imposes on the saccade and generate more deviant saccadic trajectories. Is the extent of a distractor's interference within the oculomotor system limited to its relevance to a particular current task, or can a distractor's general real-world meaning influence saccade trajectories even when it is made irrelevant within a task? Here, it is tested whether a task-irrelevant distractor can influence saccade trajectory if it depicts a stimulus that is normally socially relevant. Participants made saccades to a target object while also presented with a task-irrelevant (upright or inverted) face, or scrambled non-face equivalent. Results reveal that a distracting face creates greater deviation in saccade trajectory than does a non-face distractor, most notably at longer saccadic reaction times. These results demonstrate the sensitivity of processing that distractors are afforded by the oculomotor system, and support the view that distractor relevance beyond the task itself can also influence saccade planning and execution.

Recurrence quantification analysis of eye movements.

Recurrence quantification analysis (RQA) has been successfully used for describing dynamic systems that are too complex to be characterized adequately by standard methods in time series analysis. More recently, RQA has been used for analyzing the coordination of gaze patterns between cooperating individuals. Here, we extend RQA to the characterization of fixation sequences, and we show that the global and local temporal characteristics of fixation sequences can be captured by a small number of RQA measures that have a clear interpretation in this context. We applied RQA to the analysis of a study in which observers looked at different scenes under natural or gaze-contingent viewing conditions, and we found large differences in the RQA measures between the viewing conditions, indicating that RQA is a powerful new tool for the analysis of the temporal patterns of eye movement behavior.

A new look at social attention: orienting to the eyes is not (entirely) under volitional control.

People tend to look at other people's eyes, but whether this bias is automatic or volitional is unclear. To discriminate between these two possibilities, we used a "don't look" (DL) paradigm. Participants looked at a series of upright or inverted faces, and were asked either to freely view the faces or to avoid looking at the eyes, or as a control, the mouth. As previously demonstrated, participants showed a bias to attend to both eyes and mouths during free viewing. In the DL condition, participants told to avoid the eyes of upright faces were unable to fully suppress the tendency to fixate on the faces' eyes, whereas participants told to avoid the mouth of upright faces successfully eliminated their bias to overtly attend to that feature. When faces were inverted, participants were equally able to suppress looks to the eyes and mouth. Together, these results suggest that the tendency to look at the eyes reflects orienting that is both volitional and automatic, and that the engagement of holistic or configural face processing mechanisms during upright face viewing has an influence in guiding gaze automatically to the eyes.

Potential social interactions are important to social attention.

Social attention, or how spatial attention is allocated to biologically relevant stimuli, has typically been studied using simplistic paradigms that do not provide any opportunity for social interaction. To study social attention in a complex setting that affords social interaction, we measured participants' looking behavior as they were sitting in a waiting room, either in the presence of a confederate posing as another research participant, or in the presence of a videotape of the same confederate. Thus, the potential for social interaction existed only when the confederate was physically present. Although participants frequently looked at the videotaped confederate, they seldom turned toward or looked at the live confederate. Ratings of participants' social skills correlated with head turns to the live, but not videotaped, confederate. Our results demonstrate the importance of studying social attention within a social context, and suggest that the mere opportunity for social interaction can alter social attention.

The time course of vertical, horizontal and oblique saccade trajectories: Evidence for greater distractor interference during vertical saccades.

The present study aimed to characterize the effect of a nearby distractor on vertical, horizontal, and oblique saccade curvature under normal saccade preparation times. Consistent with previous findings, longer-latency vertical saccades showed greater curvature away from a distractor than did oblique or horizontal saccades. At short latencies, vertical saccades also showed greater curvature towards the distractor. A neural explanation for why vertical saccades show greater interference from a distractor is theorized.

Reflexive orienting to gaze is not luminance dependent.

In the investigation of reflexive orienting to cues, two major theories have emerged: One proposes that transients created by the cue trigger attentional shifts, whereas the other argues that object changes are responsible for instigating orienting. In the present study, we examined whether luminance transients produced by the cue can generate reflexive orienting to gaze. Using a temporal order judgment paradigm under luminant or subjectively equiluminant conditions, participants judged which of two peripheral targets onset first. An uninformative gaze cue served to reflexively shift attention toward one object location, thereby temporally prioritizing the target presented there. The results revealed that attention was successfully shifted toward the cued object, as was evidenced by the participants' selecting the cued object as appearing first significantly more often than the uncued object, even when the two onset simultaneously. Critically, the results were comparable across luminance conditions. Our findings reveal that luminance transients are not necessary for triggering orienting to gaze cues. We suggest that the orienting observed here can be better explained via an object-based hypothesis whereby object changes, not transients, trigger reflexive orienting.