Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38913016›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2024

Individual differences in face salience and rapid face saccades.

Maximilian Davide Broda, Petra Borovska, Benjamin de Haas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Maximilian Davide BrodaExperimental Psychology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany.
Petra BorovskaExperimental Psychology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany.
Benjamin de HaasExperimental Psychology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans saccade to faces in their periphery faster than to other types of objects. Previous research has highlighted the potential importance of the upper face region in this phenomenon, but it remains unclear whether this is driven by the eye region. Similarly, it remains unclear whether such rapid saccades are exclusive to faces or generalize to other semantically salient stimuli. Furthermore, it is unknown whether individuals differ in their face-specific saccadic reaction times and, if so, whether such differences could be linked to differences in face fixations during free viewing. To explore these open questions, we invited 77 participants to perform a saccadic choice task in which we contrasted faces as well as other salient objects, particularly isolated face features and text, with cars. Additionally, participants freely viewed 700 images of complex natural scenes in a separate session, which allowed us to determine the individual proportion of first fixations falling on faces. For the saccadic choice task, we found advantages for all categories of interest over cars. However, this effect was most pronounced for images of full faces. Full faces also elicited faster saccades compared with eyes, showing that isolated eye regions are not sufficient to elicit face-like responses. Additionally, we found consistent individual differences in saccadic reaction times toward faces that weakly correlated with face salience during free viewing. Our results suggest a link between semantic salience and rapid detection, but underscore the unique status of faces. Further research is needed to resolve the mechanisms underlying rapid face saccades.

Indexed as

Facial RecognitionIndividualityPhotic StimulationReaction TimeSaccadesAdolescentAdultFemaleFixation, OcularHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID38913016
PMCPMC11204136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.