ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2018
Arrows don't look at you: Qualitatively different attentional mechanisms triggered by gaze and arrows.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Partially Different Mechanisms of Social and Nonsocial Attention: Evidence From Changes in Cueing Effects and Underlying Frontal Cortex Processing Over Time.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
- When gaze conflicts with space: Implicit eye contact and the reversed congruency effect.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Face-like cues direct attention more narrowly than arrows.Cognitive processing · 2026Article
- Investigating the gaze-driven reversed congruency effect in the spatial Stroop task: A distributional approach.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2025Article
- Ethnicity does not matter: Comparable reversed congruency effects for gaze stimuli from same- and other-ethnicity faces.Psychological research · 2025Article
- Exploring the spatial interference effects elicited by social and non-social targets: A conditional accuracy function approach.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2025Article
- What can evidence accumulation modelling tell us about human social cognition?Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2024Article
- Attentional cueing: Gaze is harder to override than arrows.PloS one · 2024Article
- The reverse congruency effect elicited by eye-gaze as a function of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Are eyes special? Gaze, but not pointing gestures, elicits a reversed congruency effect in a spatial Stroop task.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- Explicit vs. implicit spatial processing in arrow vs. eye-gaze spatial congruency effects.Psychological research · 2023Article
- Eye-Gaze direction triggers a more specific attentional orienting compared to arrows.PloS one · 2023Article
- Does Eye Gaze Uniquely Trigger Spatial Orienting to Socially Relevant Information? A Behavioral and ERP Study.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Integration of Facial Expression and Gaze Direction in Individuals with a High Level of Autistic Traits.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Misleading Robot Signals in a Classification Task Induce Cognitive Load as Measured by Theta Synchronization Between Frontal and Temporo-parietal Brain Regions.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2022Article
- Do gaze and non-gaze stimuli trigger different spatial interference effects? It depends on stimulus perceivability.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Article
- Early saccade planning cannot override oculomotor interference elicited by gaze and arrow distractors.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2020Article
- Social modulators of gaze-mediated orienting of attention: A review.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2020Review
- Sex Differences in Attentional Selection Following Gaze and Arrow Cues.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Eye gaze conveys rich information concerning the states of mind of others, playing a critical role in social interactions, signaling internal states, and guiding others' attention. On the basis of its social significance, some researchers have proposed that eye gaze may represent a unique attentional stimulus. However, contrary to this notion, the majority of the literature has shown indistinguishable attentional effects when eye gaze and arrows have been used as cues. Taking a different approach, in this study we aimed at finding qualitative attentional differences between gazes and arrows when they were used as targets instead of as cues. We used a spatial Stroop task, in which participants were required to identify the direction of eyes or arrows presented to the left or the right of a fixation point. The results showed that the two types of stimuli led to opposite spatial interference effects, with arrows producing faster reaction times when the stimulus direction was congruent with the stimulus position (a typical spatial Stroop effect), and eye gaze producing faster reaction times when it was incongruent (a "reversed" spatial Stroop effect). This reversed Stroop is interpreted as an eye-contact effect, therefore revealing the unique nature of eyes as special social-attention stimuli.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29546665What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.