Searching for a perceived gaze direction using eye tracking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the current study was to use eye tracking to better understand the "stare-in-the-crowd effect"-the notion that direct gaze is more easily detected than averted gaze in a crowd of opposite-gaze distractors. Stimuli were displays of four full characters aligned across the monitor (one target and three distractors). Participants completed a visual search task in which they were asked to detect the location of either a direct gaze or an averted gaze target. Reaction time (RT) results indicated faster responses to direct than averted gaze only for characters situated in the far peripheral visual fields. Eye movements confirmed a serial search strategy (definitely ruling out any pop-out effects) and revealed different exploration patterns between hemifields. The latency before the first fixation on target strongly correlated with response RTs. In the LVF, that latency was also faster for direct than averted gaze targets, suggesting that the response asymmetry in favor of direct gaze stemmed from faster direct gaze target detection. In the RVF, however, the response bias to direct gaze seemed not due to a faster visual detection but rather to a different cognitive mechanism. Direct gaze targets were also responded to even faster when their position was congruent with the direction of gaze of distractors. These findings suggest that the detection asymmetry for direct gaze is highly dependent on target position and influenced by social contexts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".