Temporal Order Judgements of Dynamic Gaze Stimuli Reveal a Postdictive Prioritisation of Averted Over Direct Shifts

We studied temporal order judgements (TOJs) of gaze shift behaviours and evaluated the impact of gaze direction (direct and averted gaze) and face context information (both eyes set within a single face or each eye within two adjacent hemifaces) on TOJ performance measures. Avatar faces initially ga...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Nicola Binetti, Charlotte Harrison, Isabelle Mareschal, Alan Johnston
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2017-07-01
Series:i-Perception
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669517720808
id doaj-b90f43941fc7428f8af48ecd49d59927
record_format Article
spelling doaj-b90f43941fc7428f8af48ecd49d599272020-11-25T03:45:05ZengSAGE Publishingi-Perception2041-66952017-07-01810.1177/2041669517720808Temporal Order Judgements of Dynamic Gaze Stimuli Reveal a Postdictive Prioritisation of Averted Over Direct ShiftsNicola BinettiCharlotte HarrisonIsabelle MareschalAlan JohnstonWe studied temporal order judgements (TOJs) of gaze shift behaviours and evaluated the impact of gaze direction (direct and averted gaze) and face context information (both eyes set within a single face or each eye within two adjacent hemifaces) on TOJ performance measures. Avatar faces initially gazed leftwards or rightwards (Starting Gaze Direction). This was followed by sequential and independent left and right eye gaze shifts with various amounts of stimulus onset asynchrony. Gaze shifts could be either Matching (both eyes end up pointing direct or averted) or Mismatching (one eye ends up pointing direct, the other averted). Matching shifts revealed an attentional cueing mechanism, where TOJs were biased in favour of the eye lying in the hemispace cued by the avatar’s Starting Gaze Direction. For example, the left eye was more likely to be judged as shifting first when the avatar initially gazed toward the left side of the screen. Mismatching shifts showed biased TOJs in favour of the eye performing the averted shift, but only in the context of two separate hemifaces that does not violate expectations of directional gaze shift congruency. This suggests a postdictive inferential strategy that prioritises eye movements based on the type of gaze shift, independently of where attention is initially allocated. Averted shifts are prioritised over direct, as these might signal the presence of behaviourally relevant information in the environment.https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669517720808
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Nicola Binetti
Charlotte Harrison
Isabelle Mareschal
Alan Johnston
spellingShingle Nicola Binetti
Charlotte Harrison
Isabelle Mareschal
Alan Johnston
Temporal Order Judgements of Dynamic Gaze Stimuli Reveal a Postdictive Prioritisation of Averted Over Direct Shifts
i-Perception
author_facet Nicola Binetti
Charlotte Harrison
Isabelle Mareschal
Alan Johnston
author_sort Nicola Binetti
title Temporal Order Judgements of Dynamic Gaze Stimuli Reveal a Postdictive Prioritisation of Averted Over Direct Shifts
title_short Temporal Order Judgements of Dynamic Gaze Stimuli Reveal a Postdictive Prioritisation of Averted Over Direct Shifts
title_full Temporal Order Judgements of Dynamic Gaze Stimuli Reveal a Postdictive Prioritisation of Averted Over Direct Shifts
title_fullStr Temporal Order Judgements of Dynamic Gaze Stimuli Reveal a Postdictive Prioritisation of Averted Over Direct Shifts
title_full_unstemmed Temporal Order Judgements of Dynamic Gaze Stimuli Reveal a Postdictive Prioritisation of Averted Over Direct Shifts
title_sort temporal order judgements of dynamic gaze stimuli reveal a postdictive prioritisation of averted over direct shifts
publisher SAGE Publishing
series i-Perception
issn 2041-6695
publishDate 2017-07-01
description We studied temporal order judgements (TOJs) of gaze shift behaviours and evaluated the impact of gaze direction (direct and averted gaze) and face context information (both eyes set within a single face or each eye within two adjacent hemifaces) on TOJ performance measures. Avatar faces initially gazed leftwards or rightwards (Starting Gaze Direction). This was followed by sequential and independent left and right eye gaze shifts with various amounts of stimulus onset asynchrony. Gaze shifts could be either Matching (both eyes end up pointing direct or averted) or Mismatching (one eye ends up pointing direct, the other averted). Matching shifts revealed an attentional cueing mechanism, where TOJs were biased in favour of the eye lying in the hemispace cued by the avatar’s Starting Gaze Direction. For example, the left eye was more likely to be judged as shifting first when the avatar initially gazed toward the left side of the screen. Mismatching shifts showed biased TOJs in favour of the eye performing the averted shift, but only in the context of two separate hemifaces that does not violate expectations of directional gaze shift congruency. This suggests a postdictive inferential strategy that prioritises eye movements based on the type of gaze shift, independently of where attention is initially allocated. Averted shifts are prioritised over direct, as these might signal the presence of behaviourally relevant information in the environment.
url https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669517720808
work_keys_str_mv AT nicolabinetti temporalorderjudgementsofdynamicgazestimulirevealapostdictiveprioritisationofavertedoverdirectshifts
AT charlotteharrison temporalorderjudgementsofdynamicgazestimulirevealapostdictiveprioritisationofavertedoverdirectshifts
AT isabellemareschal temporalorderjudgementsofdynamicgazestimulirevealapostdictiveprioritisationofavertedoverdirectshifts
AT alanjohnston temporalorderjudgementsofdynamicgazestimulirevealapostdictiveprioritisationofavertedoverdirectshifts
_version_ 1724511556251680768