ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2026
Individual gaze preferences and attentional cues interact in masked and unmasked face recognition.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 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
Face processing is characterized by idiosyncratic gaze patterns, whereby certain individuals preferentially look at the eyes, while others look at the mouth. Here, we examined whether idiosyncratic gaze preferences toward the upper or lower face modulate recognition when key features of the faces are occluded (masked). Furthermore, we investigated whether attentional cues to the eyes or mouth facilitate performance differentially as a function of idiosyncratic gaze preferences. Using a separate free-viewing task, we assessed each participant's gaze preference index, indicating whether the participant primarily fixated the lower part of the face (down-lookers) or the upper part (up-lookers). Participants also completed the Glasgow Face Matching Test with masked or unmasked faces, and with attentional cues presented around either the eyes or the mouth. Performance was lower when the mouth was occluded than when it was visible, and this decrease was greater for participants who primarily fixated on the lower face in the separate free-viewing task than for those who fixated on the upper face. Additionally, the eye-cue improved performance under mask conditions. However, this effect diminished as lower face preference increased, suggesting that down-lookers may not overcome their bias to fixate on the obscured region, despite the presence of attentional cues. Altogether, individual gaze preferences modulated recognition when faces were occluded, and predicted the degree to which attentional cues benefited face recognition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41872660What 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.