Search

Mentalizing, where humans infer the mental states of others, facilitates understanding and interaction in social situations. Humans also tend to adopt mentalizing strategies when interacting with robotic agents. There is an ongoing debate about how inferred mental states affect gaze following, a key component of joint attention. Although the gaze from a robot induces gaze following, the impact of mental state attribution on robotic gaze following remains unclear. To address this question, we asked forty-nine young adults to perform a gaze cueing task during whichmental state attribution wasmanipulated as follows. Participants sat facing a robot that turned its head to the screen at its left or right. Their task was to respond to targets that appeared either at the screen the robot gazed at or at the other screen. At the baseline, the robot was positioned so that participants would perceive it as being able to see the screens. We expected faster response times to targets at the screen the robot gazed at than targets at the non-gazed screen (i.e., gaze cueing effect). In the experimental condition, the robot's line of sight was occluded by a physical barrier such that participants would perceive it as unable to see the screens. Our results revealed gaze cueing effects in both conditions although the effect was reduced in the occluded condition compared to the baseline. These results add to the expanding fields of social cognition and human-robot interaction by suggesting thatmentalizing has an impact on robotic gaze following. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Across three experiments, we examined the efficacy of three cues from the human body-body orientation, head turning, and eye-gaze direction-to shift an observer's attention in space. Using a modified Posner cueing paradigm, we replicate the previous findings of gender differences in the gaze-cueing effect whereby female but not male participants responded significantly faster to validly cued than to invalidly cued targets. In contrast to the previous studies, we report a robust cueing effect for both male and female participants when head turning direction was used as the central cue, whereas oriented bodies proved ineffectual as cues to attention for both males and females. These results are discussed with reference to the time course of central cueing effects, gender differences in spatial attention, and current models of how cues from the human body are combined to judge another person's direction of attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The present study investigated how anticipation of a target’s appearance affects human attention to gaze cues provided by a schematic face. Subjects in a ‘catch’ group received a high number of ‘catch’ trials, in which no target stimulus appeared. Subjects in the control group did not receive any catch trials. As in previous studies, both groups showed a facilitation effect to the cued location during shorter stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). In both groups, an analysis of eye movements confirmed that subjects’ eyes remained on the fixation point, ruling out the possibility that the facilitation effect was due to shifting eye movements (saccades) as opposed to a shift in covert attention. But while the control group’s response time (RT) decreased as SOA increased, the catch group’s RT had a U-shaped pattern and the facilitation effect to the cued location was reversed at the longest SOA (1005ms). These results suggest that subjects in the catch group disengaged their attention during long SOAs because they expected the trial to be a catch trial. This disengagement of attention during long SOAs results in a delay before attention could be re-focused to the previous location regardless of the cue validity [“IOR (inhibition of return)”-like-phenomenon]. Unlike the conventional IOR, we suggest that this “IOR”-like phenomenon caused by an unpredictive central gaze cue is likely to be mediated by an endogenous mechanism. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]