Eye gaze and head orientation modulate the inhibition of return for faces

Abstract

The present study used an inhibition of return (IOR) spatial cueing paradigm to examine how gaze direction and head orientation modulate attention capture for human faces. Target response time (RT) was measured after the presentation of a peripheral cue, which was either a face (with front-facing or averted gaze, in either frontal head view or averted head view) or a house (control). Participants fixated on a centered cross at all times and responded via button press to a peripheral target after a variable stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) from the stimulus cue. At the shortest SOA (150 ms), RTs were shorter for faces than houses, independent of an IOR response, suggesting a cue-based RT advantage elicited by faces. At the longest SOA (2,400 ms), a larger IOR magnitude was found for faces compared to houses. Both the cue-based RT advantage and later IOR responses were modulated by gaze-head congruency; these effects were strongest for frontal gaze faces in frontal head view, and for averted gaze faces in averted head view. Importantly, participants were not given any specific information regarding the stimuli, nor were they told the true purpose of the study. These findings indicate that the congruent combination of head and gaze direction influence the exogenous attention capture of faces during inhibition of return.

Keywords: Face perception; Gaze perception; Inhibition of return; Visuospatial attention.

Figure 1

Stimulus presentation, with reproductions (i.e., not the actual photos) of the George et al. (2001) faces used in the study (an example of an actual house stimulus used in the study is shown). The fixation cross was shown during the entire duration of each trial to keep participants’ fixation focused. Please note that for averted gaze faces, both left- and right-looking faces were used, and for averted head views, both left- and right-facing head orientations were used.

Figure 2

Target response RTs for the Frontal Head condition, as a function of cueing condition, stimulus cue, and SOA. Results for (A) 150 ms SOA, (B) 300 ms SOA, (C) 800 ms SOA, (D) 1200 ms SOA, and (E) 2400 ms SOA (all shown with standard error bars). See text for details.

Figure 3

IOR magnitudes (i.e., difference scores between cued stimulus RTs and uncued stimulus RTs) for the Frontal Head condition, as a function of stimulus cue and SOA. Results for (A) 150 ms SOA, (B) 300 ms SOA, (C) 800 ms SOA, (D) 1200 ms SOA, and (E) 2400 ms SOA (all shown with standard error bars). See text for details.

Figure 4

Target response RTs for the Averted Head condition, as a function of cueing condition, stimulus cue, and SOA. Results for (A) 150 ms SOA, (B) 300 ms SOA, (C) 800 ms SOA, (D) 1200 ms SOA, and (E) 2400 ms SOA (all shown with standard error bars). See text for details.

Figure 5

IOR magnitudes (i.e., difference scores between cued stimulus RTs and uncued stimulus RTs) for the Averted Head condition, as a function of stimulus cue and SOA. Results for (A) 150 ms SOA, (B) 300 ms SOA, (C) 800 ms SOA, (D) 1200 ms SOA, and (E) 2400 ms SOA (all shown with standard error bars). See text for details.