Emotional gaze increases target temporal processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human attention is spontaneously oriented in the direction of eye gaze, with such gaze following behavior enhanced when a face shows an emotional expression. Here we investigated how emotional eye gaze affects the temporal precision of target perception. Participants viewed a face that either maintained a neutral expression or displayed an emotional reaction (fearful or happy) upon averting its gaze to the left or right. Two peripheral targets were presented, one to the left and another one to the right of the face. These targets were temporally offset by 0ms, 50ms, 100ms, or 150ms. Participants performed a temporal order judgement, reporting on which target appeared first (left or right). Data showed greater accuracy when the first target appeared at the gazed-at location, demonstrating that eye gaze facilitates temporal perception. Greater sensitivity for target timing at gazed-at locations was also supported by steeper response curves (reflecting proportion of right vs. left responses) and was further modulated by the emotional expression of the face, such that increased temporal target perception was present when faces displayed emotional expressions (fearful and happy) but not when they remained neutral. Together, these findings show that eye-gaze perception enhances the temporal processing of targets at gazed-at locations, and particularly so when the face display an emotional expression. This potentially reflects an adaptive mechanism that facilitates rapid responses to biologically relevant emotional face stimuli.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".