Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39700119›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Looking, pointing, and talking together: How dyads of differential expertise coordinate attention during conversation.

Lucas Haraped, Stefan E Huber, Walter F Bischof, Alan Kingstone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Lucas HarapedDepartment of Psychology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-5375-0647
Stefan E HuberDepartment of Psychology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-5057-0376
Walter F BischofDepartment of Psychology, University of British, Columbia, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5508-0421
Alan KingstoneDepartment of Psychology, University of British, Columbia, BC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When people discuss something that they can both see, their attention becomes increasingly coupled. Previous studies have found that this coupling is temporally asymmetric (e.g., one person leads and one follows) when dyads are assigned conversational roles (e.g., speaker and listener). And while such studies have focused on the coupling of gaze, there is also evidence that people use their hands to coordinate attention. The present study uses a visual task to expand on this past work in two respects. First, rather than assigning conversational roles, participants' background knowledge was manipulated (e.g., expert and novice) to elicit differential roles inherent to the conversation. Second, participants were permitted to gesture freely while interacting. Cross Recurrence Quantification Analysis with data from mobile eye trackers and manually coded pointing gestures revealed that although more knowledgeable participants dominated the dialogue by talking and pointing more, the symmetry of coupled behaviors (gaze and pointing) between participants remained fixed. Asymmetric attentional coupling emerged, although this was dependent on conversational turn taking. Specifically, regardless of background knowledge, the currently speaking participant led attention, both with the eyes and with the hands. These findings suggest stable, turn-dependent interpersonal coupling dynamics, and highlight the role of pointing gestures and conversational turn-taking in multimodal attention coordination.

Indexed as

AttentionGesturesAdultCommunicationEye MovementsFemaleFixation, OcularHumansInterpersonal RelationsMaleSpeechYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39700119
PMCPMC11658607

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.