title: Effective processing of masked eye gaze requires volitional control.
abstract: The purpose of the present study was to establish whether the validity effect produced by masked eye gaze cues should be attributed to strictly reflexive mechanisms or to volitional top-down mechanisms. While we find that masked eye gaze cues are effective in producing a validity effect in a central cueing paradigm, we also find that the efficacy of masked gaze cues is sharply constrained by the experimental context. Specifically, masked gaze cues only produced a validity effect when they appeared in the context of unmasked and predictive gaze cues. Unmasked gaze cues, in contrast, produced reliable validity effects across a range of experimental contexts, including Experiment 4 where 80% of the cues were invalid (counter-predictive). Taken together, these results suggest that the effective processing of masked gaze cues requires volitional control, whereas the processing of unmasked (clearly visible) gaze cues appears to benefit from both reflexive and top-down mechanisms.
authors.affiliation: Centre for Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia. shahd.al-janabi@mq.edu.au
authors.forename: Shahd
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Al-Janabi
authors.forename: Matthew
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Finkbeiner
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology*; D003463:Cues; D005260:Female; D005403:Fixation, Ocular / Q000502:physiology*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual / Q000502:physiology; D010470:Perceptual Masking / Q000502:physiology*; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Feb;4(2):50-59
references.pmid: 10652522
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2011 Jun;37(3):634-44
references.pmid: 21038995
references.citation: PLoS One. 2011 Feb 10;6(2):e17095
references.pmid: 21347336
references.citation: Cognition. 2005 Jan;94(3):B55-65
references.pmid: 15617667
references.citation: Emotion. 2005 Mar;5(1):3-11
references.pmid: 15755215
references.citation: Neurophysiol Clin. 2008 Jun;38(3):197-207
references.pmid: 18539254
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 2007 Oct;183(1):87-94
references.pmid: 17624520
references.citation: Neuroscientist. 2012 Jun;18(3):287-301
references.pmid: 21628675
references.citation: Nature. 1998 Oct 8;395(6702):597-600
references.pmid: 9783584
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2002 Mar;13(2):190-3
references.pmid: 11934007
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Sep;9(3):507-13
references.pmid: 12412890
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2005 Aug;31(4):762-77
references.pmid: 16131248
references.citation: Adv Cogn Psychol. 2011;7:82-91
references.pmid: 22253671
references.citation: Cognition. 2003 Jun;88(2):223-42
references.pmid: 12763320
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Jul 9;99(14):9602-5
references.pmid: 12082186
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2006 Nov;59(11):1921-30
references.pmid: 16987781
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Jun;9(2):314-8
references.pmid: 12120794
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2004 Apr;30(2):319-29
references.pmid: 15053691