title: The owl and the pussycat: gaze cues and visuospatial orienting.
abstract: Recent research has shown that nonpredictive gaze cues trigger reflexive shifts in attention toward the looked-at location. But just how generalizable is this spatial cuing effect? In particular, are people especially tuned to gaze cues provided by conspecifics, or can comparable shifts in visual attention be triggered by other cue providers and directional cues? To investigate these issues, we used a standard cuing paradigm to compare the attentional orienting produced by different cue providers (i.e., animate vs. inanimate) and directional cues (i.e., eyes vs. arrows). The results of three experiments revealed that attentional orienting was insensitive to both the identity of the cue provider and the nature of the triggering cue. However, compared with arrows, gaze cues prompted a general enhancement in the efficiency of processing operations. We consider the implications of these findings for accounts of reflexive visual orienting.
authors.affiliation: Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA.
authors.forename: Susanne
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Quadflieg
authors.forename: Malia F
authors.initials: MF
authors.lastname: Mason
authors.forename: C Neil
authors.initials: CN
authors.lastname: Macrae
mesh_terms: D003463:Cues; D005260:Female; D005403:Fixation, Ocular; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D013028:Space Perception; D014796:Visual Perception
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1992 Jan 29;335(1273):23-30
references.pmid: 1348133
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2003 Sep 16;13(18):1609-13
references.pmid: 13678591
references.citation: Anim Cogn. 1998 Oct;1(2):89-99
references.pmid: 24399273
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1989 May;15(2):315-30
references.pmid: 2525601
references.citation: Anim Behav. 1998 Apr;55(4):1063-9
references.pmid: 9632490
references.citation: Cognition. 1991 Aug;40(1-2):1-19
references.pmid: 1786670
references.citation: Cognition. 2003 Feb;87(1):B1-10
references.pmid: 12499107
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1991 Apr;98(2):164-81
references.pmid: 2047512
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Jul;4(7):267-278
references.pmid: 10859571
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2000 Jan;3(1):80-4
references.pmid: 10607399
references.citation: Neuroreport. 2001 Aug 8;12(11):2381-6
references.pmid: 11496114
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol. 1980 Feb;32(1):3-25
references.pmid: 7367577
references.citation: Perception. 1995;24(11):1297-313
references.pmid: 8643334
references.citation: Neuroreport. 1999 Nov 8;10(16):3443-7
references.pmid: 10599859
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2000 Mar;11(2):159-66
references.pmid: 11273424
references.citation: Anim Cogn. 1998 Oct;1(2):113-21
references.pmid: 24399275
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2002 Sep;13(5):460-4
references.pmid: 12219814
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Feb;4(2):50-59
references.pmid: 10652522
references.citation: Pediatrics. 1975 Oct;56(4):544-9
references.pmid: 1165958
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Sep;9(3):507-13
references.pmid: 12412890
references.citation: Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2000 Aug;24(6):581-604
references.pmid: 10940436
references.citation: Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1985 Jan 22;223(1232):293-317
references.pmid: 2858100
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1986 Jul;100(1):78-100
references.pmid: 3526377
references.citation: Neuroimage. 1998 Aug;8(2):221-7
references.pmid: 9740764
references.citation: J Neurosci. 1998 Mar 15;18(6):2188-99
references.pmid: 9482803
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Jun;9(2):314-8
references.pmid: 12120794
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Jun;4(6):223-233
references.pmid: 10827445