ArticlePsychological research2026
Pointing over gaze: how saliency, proximity, and context shape spatial attention to embodied cues.
Article in Psychological research, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent work suggests that the pointing hand on an outstretched arm is possibly a more powerful cue than the gaze-cue, suggesting these embodied social cues are not equal. The aim of this study is to investigate differences between gaze- and pointing-cue, looking specifically at saliency, spatial proximity, and trial context. A cartoon figure was used to present four types of cues: (1) a gaze-cue, (2) a peripheral pointing cue on an outstretched arm, (3) a central pointing cue presented over the torso of the body, and (4) a flower cue matched for low-level features to the peripheral pointing cue. Validity was non-predictive. To test the impact of trial context on the impact of the cues, different cue types were presented randomly within blocks (Experiment 1) or tested in separate blocks (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, gaze and gesture cues were intermixed within blocks, but the number of gaze-cue trials was balanced with the pointing cues, ensuring that the gaze-cue occurred equally often as the gesture cues. The results showed that the pointing cue was much more effective in directing attention than the gaze-cue, especially when cues could not be predicted (Experiment 1 and 3). Blocked conditions (Experiment 2) yielded more effective cue-effects compared to mixed conditions (Experiment 1) and even yielded reliable cue effects for stimuli without intuitive directional meaning (i.e., flower cue). Across all three experiments, the results showed that the impact of the pointing cue could not be explained by low-level salience or spatial proximity to the target. Trial context affected the effectiveness of the cues, suggesting that spatial cueing is shaped by expectations; however, the advantage of the pointing cue over the gaze cue emerged independently of trial context. Together, these results challenge the idea that embodied cues influence attention uniformly, revealing systematic variation in effectiveness, with the pointing cue especially robust.
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.