ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2022
Infrequent faces bias social attention differently in manual and oculomotor measures.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Uncovering everyday attention in the lab: front-viewed heads boost overt social orienting.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although attention is thought to be spontaneously biased by social cues like faces and eyes, recent data have demonstrated that when extraneous content, context, and task factors are controlled, attentional biasing is abolished in manual responses while still occurring sparingly in oculomotor measures. Here, we investigated how social attentional biasing was affected by face novelty by measuring responses to frequently presented (i.e., those with lower novelty) and infrequently presented (i.e., those with higher novelty) face identities. Using a dot-probe task, participants viewed either the same face and house identity that was frequently presented on half of the trials or sixteen different face and house identities that were infrequently presented on the other half of the trials. A response target occurred with equal probability at the previous location of the eyes or mouth of the face or the top or bottom of the house. Experiment 1 measured manual responses to the target while participants maintained central fixation. Experiment 2 additionally measured participants' natural oculomotor behaviour when their eye movements were not restricted. Across both experiments, no evidence of social attentional biasing was found in manual data. However, in Experiment 2, there was a reliable oculomotor bias towards the eyes of infrequently presented upright faces. Together, these findings suggest that face novelty does not facilitate manual measures of social attention, but it appears to promote spontaneous oculomotor biasing towards the eyes of infrequently presented novel faces.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35084707What 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.