Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29423811›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2018

Face stimulus eliminates antisaccade-cost: gaze following is a different kind of arrow.

Liran Zeligman, Ari Z Zivotofsky

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Liran ZeligmanDepartment of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Ari Z ZivotofskyThe Leslie and Susan Gonda (Goldschmied) Multidisciplinary Brain Research Center, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel. ari.zivotofsky@biu.ac.il.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When a person suddenly looks in a certain direction, others seem to shift their attention to the same, looked-at, location. This common observation, that gaze-of-another seems to trigger reflexive shifts of attention within an observer, has been demonstrated in various studies. Yet just how reflexive it truly is, is an on-going controversy. Unlike most studies in which gaze cues were distractors in a cueing paradigm, the current study used gaze cues as triggers in a mixed pro- and anti-saccade task and a Posner-like discrimination task. In a set of two experiments, we investigated whether attention triggered by gaze-of-another differs from attention triggered by peripheral (exogenous) and arrow stimuli. In the first experiment, gaze cues resulted in slowed saccadic responses and in the elimination of the anti-saccade-cost associated with reflexive orienting. Pro-saccades triggered by peripheral cues had significantly fewer errors and shorter reaction times than anti-saccades. However, there was no significant difference between pro and anti-saccades triggered by gaze cues. Thus, counter to expectations, gaze did not produce reflexive shifts of overt attention. The second experiment showed that attention triggered by gaze cues is no different from attention triggered by biologically irrelevant arrow cues. They both eliminated the anti-saccade-cost and displayed prolonged reaction times. However, manual discrimination RTs showed no significant differences between gaze and peripheral cues. Together, these results suggest that neither gaze nor arrow cues trigger reflexive shifts of overt attention.

Indexed as

CuesAdultAttentionFemaleFixation, OcularHumansMalePattern Recognition, VisualPsychomotor PerformanceReaction TimeSaccadesYoung AdultCovert-attentionGazeOvert-attentionReflexiveSaccade

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.