Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Mar;61(2):228-238.
doi: 10.1002/dev.21797. Epub 2018 Oct 30.

Visual preferences for direct-gaze faces in infant macaques (Macaca mulatta) with limited face exposure

Affiliations

Visual preferences for direct-gaze faces in infant macaques (Macaca mulatta) with limited face exposure

Elizabeth A Simpson et al. Dev Psychobiol. 2019 Mar.

Abstract

From birth, human and nonhuman primates attend more to faces with direct gaze compared with averted gaze, and previous studies report that attention to the eyes is linked to the emergence of later social skills. Here, we explored whether early experiences influence attraction to eye contact in infant macaques by examining their attention to face pairs varying in their gaze direction across the first 13 weeks of life. Infants raised by human caretakers had limited conspecific interactions (nursery-reared; N = 16) and were compared to infants raised in rich social environments (mother-reared; N = 20). Both groups looked longer to faces and the eyes of direct compared to averted-gaze faces. Looking to all faces and eyes also increased with age. Nursery-reared infants did not display age-associated increases in attention to direct-gaze faces specifically, suggesting that, while there may be an initial preference for direct-gaze faces from birth, social experiences may support its early development.

Keywords: attention; infant development; mutual gaze; primate; social attention; vision.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Direct gaze (top left) and averted gaze (top right) sample stimuli. Areas of interest (AOI) are shown around the head and eye zone regions (bottom).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Overall fixation proportion collapsed across age in nursery-reared infants. Infants looked for a greater proportion of time to the direct (dark blue) compared to averted (light blue) gaze faces, for both the face region (left plot) and eye region (right plot), ps < .05. Solid horizontal lines indicate medians, the bottom and top of the boxes indicate 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively, and whiskers indicate the most extreme data point that is no more than 1.5 × interquartile range (IQR) below the lower quartile and above the upper quartile. Dots indicate outliers, more than 1.5 × IQR.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Fixation proportion across development (in weeks) in mother-reared (left graphs) and nursery-reared (right graphs) infants. Infants displayed increases in their proportions of time looking to the areas of interest (AOI) in the zones around the face (top graphs) and eyes (bottom graphs) with age, ps < .05. Direct-gaze faces are represented with dark blue and averted-gaze faces are represented with light blue. Points reflect means and error bars reflect standard errors of the means.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Mean fixation proportion collapsed across age in mother-reared (left graph) and nursery-reared (right graph) infants, for the areas of interest (AOI) in the zones around the face and eyes, for direct-gaze (dark blue) and averted-gaze (light blue) faces. There was a stimulus type × rearing interaction for the face looking time proportion, ps < .05, indicating that mother-reared infants displayed a larger difference in attention between direct and averted gaze faces compared to nursery-reared infants. Error bars reflect standard error of the mean.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Arcaro MJ, Schade PF, Vincent JL, Ponce CR, & Livingstone MS (2017). Seeing faces is necessary for face-domain formation. Nature Neuroscience, 20(10), 1404. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Batki A, Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Connellan J, & Ahluwalia J (2000). Is there an innate gaze module? Evidence from human neonates. Infant Behavior and Development, 23(2), 223–229. doi: 10.1016/S0163-6383(01)00037-6 - DOI
    1. Bedford R, Pickles A, Sharp H, Wright N, & Hill J (2015). Reduced face preference in infancy: A developmental precursor to callous-unemotional traits? Biological Psychiatry, 78(2), 144–150. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.09.022 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Blass EM, & Camp CA (2001). The ontogeny of face recognition: Eye contact and sweet taste induce face preference in 9-and 12-week-old human infants. Developmental Psychology, 37(6), 762–774. - PubMed
    1. Conty L, Tijus C, Hugueville L, Coelho E, & George N (2006). Searching for asymmetries in the detection of gaze contact versus averted gaze under different head views: a behavioural study. Spatial Vision, 19(6), 529–545. doi: 10.1163/156856806779194026 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types