ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2023
Pareidolic faces receive prioritized attention in the dot-probe task.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Image type reveals evolutionarily shaped perceptual and conceptual mechanisms of pareidolia.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Engineering Pareidolia: Mental Imagery, Perceptual Scaffolding, and Visual Creativity.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Attentional capture by real and illusory faces: a failure to replicate.Psychological research · 2025Article
- The neural basis of face pareidolia with human intracerebral recordings.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- A behavioral advantage for the face pareidolia illusion in peripheral vision.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Dynamic brain communication underwriting face pareidolia.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Face pareidolia occurs when random or ambiguous inanimate objects are perceived as faces. While real faces automatically receive prioritized attention compared with nonface objects, it is unclear whether pareidolic faces similarly receive special attention. We hypothesized that, given the evolutionary importance of broadly detecting animacy, pareidolic faces may have enough faceness to activate a broad face template, triggering prioritized attention. To test this hypothesis, and to explore where along the faceness continuum pareidolic faces fall, we conducted a series of dot-probe experiments in which we paired pareidolic faces with other images directly competing for attention: objects, animal faces, and human faces. We found that pareidolic faces elicited more prioritized attention than objects, a process that was disrupted by inversion, suggesting this prioritized attention was unlikely to be driven by low-level features. However, unexpectedly, pareidolic faces received more privileged attention compared with animal faces and showed similar prioritized attention to human faces. This attentional efficiency may be due to pareidolic faces being perceived as not only face-like, but also as human-like, and having larger facial features-eyes and mouths-compared with real faces. Together, our findings suggest that pareidolic faces appear automatically attentionally privileged, similar to human faces. Our findings are consistent with the proposal of a highly sensitive broad face detection system that is activated by pareidolic faces, triggering false alarms (i.e., illusory faces), which, evolutionarily, are less detrimental relative to missing potentially relevant signals (e.g., conspecific or heterospecific threats). In sum, pareidolic faces appear "special" in attracting attention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.