ArticleMemory & cognition2026
Dissociating effects of gaze direction and facial motion on memory of dynamic faces.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Research on dynamic face processing often emphasizes facial movements while overlooking how social information conveyed by moving faces influences face perception and memory. Our study investigated how eye gaze, a critical social cue, affects the memory of dynamic faces and whether the effect generalizes across facial motion (e.g., rigid and elastic motion) and own- and other-race faces. We employed a recognition memory task across three experiments to address these questions. Experiment 1 compared memory following learning static or moving faces and showed better memory for static and elastically moving faces (i.e., with a direct gaze) than for rigidly moving faces (i.e., with varying gaze directions), more so for own- than other-race faces. Experiment 2 manipulated gaze direction in both elastic and rigid facial motion (i.e., direct vs. averted) and showed a direct-gaze advantage. Learning direct-gaze faces, with either rigid or elastic facial motion, produced consistently better memory performance than that after learning averted-gaze faces, which was more pronounced for own-race faces. Experiment 3 manipulated the congruency of gaze direction between learning and test phases for both rigid and elastic facial motion. The advantage of learning direct-gaze faces persisted, irrespective of gaze congruency between study and test faces. These results not only demonstrate the crucial role of social signals, like eye gaze, in face memory but also dissociate the influences of facial motion and its accompanying gaze directions on the memory of dynamic faces, which may help reconcile discrepant findings regarding the effect of facial motion on face perception and recognition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40804508What 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.