Clarifying the role of gaze cueing using biologically natural and unnatural gazes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have reported reflexive attention shifts using a symbolic cue of a schematic face with eyes moving to the left or right. It is thought that these gaze cues elicit reflexive orienting because the eyes play an important role in social cognition. However, there remains conflicting evidence regarding the type of orienting produced by gaze cues. Here, we sought to clarify the role of gaze cues in attentional orienting by testing the extent to which the gaze cue effect depends on biologically natural gazes. Subjects were presented with a line-drawing of a natural or unnatural face looking left, right, or straight ahead. In the 2-eye condition both eyes looked in the same direction. In the 1-eye condition only one eye looked left or right and the other eye looked straight ahead. In the Cyclops condition the face had only one looking eye. Then a target (an F or T) appeared on either side of the face. The cue-target onset asynchrony (CTOA) was randomized (105ms, 300ms, 600ms, or 1005ms). All cues were uninformative and subjects were told the direction of gaze did not predict target location. Subjects made speeded button press responses to identify the letter. Results show that reaction times (RTs) in the 2-eye condition were faster for valid cues at the 300ms and 600ms CTOAs, indicating that biologically natural gaze cues can elicit reflexive attentional orienting. RTs in the 1-eye condition and the Cyclops condition were only faster for valid cues at the 1005ms CTOA, suggesting that biologically unnatural gaze cues involve goal-driven attentional orienting. Overall RTs were slowest in the Cyclops condition and fastest in the 2-eye condition. Our findings further clarify the role gaze cues play in attention and suggest a specialized brain mechanism for attentional orienting in response to biologically natural gaze shifts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".