Search

When looking for a certain object or person, individuals often engage in collaborative visual search, i.e., they search together by coordinating their behavior. For instance, when parents are looking for their child on a busy playground, they might search collaboratively by dividing the search area. This type of labor division in collaborative visual search could be beneficial not only in daily life, but also in professional life (e.g., at airport security screening, lifeguarding, or diagnostic radiology). To better understand the mechanisms underlying this type of collaborative behavior, as well as its benefits and costs, researchers have studied visual search scenarios in the laboratory. The aim of this review article is to provide a brief overview of the results of these studies. Are individuals faster if they search together compared to alone? And if so, should they simply search in parallel, or will they benefit from agreeing on a specific labor division? How should they divide the search space, and how to communicate this division? Should a consensus be reached (target present or absent?) before ending the search? We address these and further key questions, focusing on the aspect of labor division. In conclusion, we integrate the reviewed findings into an applied context, point out which questions still remain, and put forward suggestions for future research. We hope that this review can serve not only as a theoretical foundation for basic research but also as a practical inspiration for applied research and development.

Humans coordinate their focus of attention with others, either by gaze following or prior agreement. Though the effects of joint attention on perceptual and cognitive processing tend to be examined in purely visual environments, they should also show in multisensory settings. According to a prevalent hypothesis, joint attention enhances visual information encoding and processing, over and above individual attention. If two individuals jointly attend to the visual components of an audiovisual event, this should affect the weighing of visual information during multisensory integration. We tested this prediction in this preregistered study, using the well-documented sound-induced flash illusions, where the integration of an incongruent number of visual flashes and auditory beeps results in a single flash being seen as two (fission illusion) and two flashes as one (fusion illusion). Participants were asked to count flashes either alone or together, and expected to be less prone to both fission and fusion illusions when they jointly attended to the visual targets. However, illusions were as frequent when people attended to the flashes alone or with someone else, even though they responded faster during joint attention. Our results reveal the limitations of the theory that joint attention enhances visual processing as it does not affect temporal audiovisual integration.

Visual perspective taking (VPT) is a fundamental process of social cognition. To date, however, only a handful of studies have investigated whether humans also take the perspective of humanoid robots. Recent findings on this topic are conflicting as one study found no evidence for level 1 VPT (i.e., which object is seen by the agent) and a different study has found evidence for level 2 VPT (i.e., how is the object seen by the agent). These results are puzzling given that level 1 VPT is a foundational ability for level 2 VPT. The latter study proposed that the human-like appearance of robots triggers VPT (mere-appearance hypothesis). In the present study, we tested level 1 VPT for humanoid robots and the robustness of the mere-appearance hypothesis. We manipulated the appearance of the robot (i.e., either shown with a human-like or artificial head), and whether it was presented as switched on or off. We found that all manipulations triggered VPT, showing, in contrast to earlier findings, level 1 VPT for robots. Also, our findings support the mere-appearance hypothesis as VPT was triggered regardless of whether the robot was switched on or off, and show that the mere-appearance hypothesis is robust with regard to alterations of human-like appearance.

When acting jointly, individuals often attend and respond to the same spatial location in complementary ways (e.g., when passing a mug, one person grasps its handle with a precision grip; the other receives it with a whole-hand grip). At the same time, the spatial relation between individuals' actions affects attentional orienting: one is slower to attend and respond to locations another person previously acted upon than to alternate locations ("social inhibition of return (IOR)"). Achieving joint goals (e.g., passing a mug), however, often requires returning to a co-actor's location. Our study thus addresses the question of whether joint goals affect attentional orienting, and hence the social IOR. Participants responded to cued locations on a screen, taking turns with a virtual co-actor. They pursued either an individual or a joint goal. Four experiments consistently showed that the social IOR was significantly modulated when participant and co-actor shared a joint goal. This suggests that attentional orienting is affected not only by the spatial but also by the social relation between individuals' actions. Our findings extend research on interpersonal perception-action effects, showing that the way another person's perceived action shapes our own depends on whether we share a joint goal with that person.

People often perform visual tasks together, for example, when looking for a misplaced key. When performing such tasks jointly, people coordinate their actions to divide the labor, for example, by looking for the misplaced key in different rooms. This way, they tend to perform better together than individually-they attain a group benefit. A crucial factor determining whether (and to what extent) individuals attain a group benefit is the amount of information they receive about each other's actions and performance. We systematically varied, across 8 conditions, the information participant pairs received while jointly performing a visual task. We find that participants can attain a group benefit without receiving any information (and thus cannot coordinate their actions). However, actions are coordinated and the group benefit is enhanced if participants receive information about each other's actions or performance. If both types of information are received, participants are faster in creating efficient labor divisions. To create divisions, participants used the screen center as a reference to divide the labor into a left and right side. When participants cannot coordinate actions, they exhibit a bias toward choosing the same side, but they forgo this bias once action coordination is possible, thereby boosting group performance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Humans frequently coordinate with others in daily life. A recent study on perceptual decision-making showed that dyad members with similar individual performances attain a higher joint performance than the better dyad member (i.e., a collective benefit). However, little is known about the physiological basis of these results. Here, we replicate this earlier work and also investigate the neurophysiological correlates of decision-making using EEG.In a two interval forced choice task, co-actors individually indicated presence of a target stimulus with a higher contrast and then indicated their confidence on a rating scale. Viewing the individual ratings, dyads made a joint decision. Replicating earlier work, we found a positive correlation between the similarity of individual performances and collective benefit.We analyzed event related potentials (ERPs) in three phases (i.e., stimulus onset, response, and feedback) using explorative cluster mass permutation tests. At stimulus onset, ERPs were significantly linearly related to our manipulation of contrast differences, validating our manipulation of task difficulty. For individual and joint responses, we found a significant centro-parietal error-related positivity for correct versus incorrect responses, which suggests that accuracy is already evaluated at the response level. At feedback presentation, we found a significant late positive fronto-central potential elicited by incorrect joint responses, suggesting a stronger emotional response to negative as compared to positive feedback. In sum, these results demonstrate that response- and feedback-related components elicited by an error-monitoring system differentially integrate conflicting information exchanged during the joint decision-making process.

While passive social information (e.g. pictures of people) routinely draws one's eyes, our willingness to look at live others is more nuanced. People tend not to stare at strangers and will modify their gaze behaviour to avoid sending undesirable social signals; yet they often continue to monitor others covertly “out of the corner of their eyes.” What this means for looks that are being made near to live others is unknown. Will the eyes be drawn towards the other person, or pushed away? We evaluate changes in two elements of gaze control: image-independent principles guiding how people look (e.g. biases to make eye movements along the cardinal directions) and image-dependent principles guiding what people look at (e.g. a preference for meaningful content within a scene). Participants were asked to freely view semantically unstructured (fractals) and semantically structured (rotated landscape) images, half of which were located in the space near to a live other. We found that eye movements were horizontally displaced away from a visible other starting at 1032 ms after stimulus onset when fractals but not landscapes were viewed. We suggest that the avoidance of looking towards live others extends to the near space around them, at least in the absence of semantically meaningful gaze targets.

In everyday life, people often work together to accomplish a joint goal. Often in such tasks working together results in a higher performance compared to working alone – a so-called "group benefit". While several factors influencing group benefits have already been investigated in a range of tasks, to date they have not been examined collectively with an integrative statistical approach such as linear modeling. To address this gap in the literature, we investigated several factors that are highly relevant for group benefits and used these factors as predictors in a linear model to predict group benefits. We found that predictors collectively account for half of the variance and make non-redundant contributions towards predicting group benefits, suggesting that they independently influence group benefits. The model also accurately predicts group benefits, suggesting that it could be used to predict group benefits for individuals that have not yet performed a joint task together. Given that the investigated factors are relevant for other joint tasks, our model provides a first step towards developing a more general model for predicting group benefits across several joint tasks.

Our senses are stimulated continuously. Through multisensory integration, different sensory inputs may or may not be combined into a unitary percept. Simultaneous with this stimulation, people are frequently engaged in social interactions, but how multisensory integration and social processing interact is largely unknown. The present study investigated if, and how, the multisensory sound-induced flash illusion is affected by a social manipulation. In the sound-induced flash illusion, a participant typically receives one visual flash and two auditory beeps and she or he is required to indicate the number of flashes that were perceived. Often, the auditory beeps alter the perception of the flashes such that a participant tends to perceive two flashes instead of one flash. We tested whether performing a flash counting task with a partner (confederate), who was required to indicate the number of presented beeps, would modulate this illusion. We found that the sound-induced flash illusion was perceived significantly more often when the flash counting task was performed with the confederate compared with performing it alone. Yet, we no longer find this effect if visual access between the two individuals is prevented. These findings, combined with previous results, suggest that performing a multisensory task jointly—in this case an audiovisual task—lowers the extent to which an individual attends to visual information, which in turn affects the multisensory integration process.

In daily life, humans often perform perceptual tasks together to reach a shared goal. In these situations, individuals may collaborate (e.g., by distributing task demands) to perform the task better than when the task is performed alone (i.e., attain a group benefit). In this review, we identify the factors influencing if, and to what extent, a group benefit is attained and provide a framework of measures to assess group benefits in perceptual tasks. In particular, we integrate findings from two frequently investigated joint perceptual tasks: visuospatial tasks and decision-making tasks. For both task types, we find that an exchange of information between coactors is critical to improve joint performance. Yet, the type of exchanged information and how coactors collaborate differs between tasks. In visuospatial tasks, coactors exchange information about the performed actions to distribute task demands. In perceptual decision-making tasks, coactors exchange their confidence on their individual perceptual judgments to negotiate a joint decision. We argue that these differences can be explained by the task structure: coactors distribute task demands if a joint task allows for a spatial division and stimuli can be accurately processed by one individual. Otherwise, they perform the task individually and then integrate their individual judgments.

In daily life, humans constantly process information from multiple sensory modalities (e.g., visual and auditory). Information across sensory modalities may (or may not) be combined to form the perception of a single event via the process of multisensory integration. Recent research has suggested that performing a spatial crossmodal congruency task jointly with a partner affects multisensory integration. To date, it has not been investigated whether multisensory integration in other crossmodal tasks is also affected by performing a task jointly. To address this point, we investigated whether joint task performance also affects perceptual judgments in a crossmodal motion discrimination task and a temporal order judgment task. In both tasks, pairs of participants were presented with auditory and visual stimuli that might or might not be perceived as belonging to a single event. Each participant in a pair was required to respond to stimuli from one sensory modality only (e.g., visual stimuli only). Participants performed both individual and joint conditions. Replicating earlier multisensory integration effects, we found that participants' perceptual judgments were significantly affected by stimuli in the other modality for both tasks. However, we did not find that performing a task jointly modulated these crossmodal effects. Taking this together with earlier findings, we suggest that joint task performance affects crossmodal results in a manner dependent on how these effects are quantified (i.e., via responses time or accuracy) and the specific task demands (i.e., whether tasks require processing stimuli in terms of location, motion, or timing).

In daily life, humans often perform visual tasks, such as solving puzzles or searching for a friend in a crowd. Performing these visual searches jointly with a partner can be beneficial: The two task partners can devise effective division of labour strategies and thereby outperform individuals who search alone. To date, it is unknown whether these group benefits scale up to triads or whether the cost of coordinating with others offsets any potential benefit for group sizes above two. To address this question, we compare participants' performance in a visual search task that they perform either alone, in dyads, or in triads. When the search task is performed jointly, co-actors receive information about each other's gaze location. After controlling for speed-accuracy trade-offs, we found that triads searched faster than dyads, suggesting that group benefits do scale up to triads. Moreover, we found that the triads' divided the search space in accordance with the co-actors' individual search performances but searched less efficiently than dyads. We also present a statistical model to predict group benefits, which accounts for 70% of the variance. The model includes our experimental factors and a set of non-redundant predictors, quantifying the similarities in the individual performances, the collaboration between co-actors, and the estimated benefits that co-actors would attain without collaborating. Overall, the present study demonstrates that group benefits scale up to larger group sizes, but the additional gains are attenuated by the increased costs associated with devising effective division of labour strategies.

In the near future humans will increasingly be required to cooperate and share task load with artificial agents in joint tasks as they will be able to greatly assist humans in various types of tasks and contexts. In the present study, we investigated humans’ willingness to share task load with a computer partner in a joint visuospatial task. The partner was described as either behaving in a human-like or machine-like way and followed a pre-defined behaviour that was either human-like or non-human-like. We found that participants successfully shared task load when the partner behaved in a human-like way. Critically, the successful collaboration was sustained throughout the experiment only when the partner was also described as behaving in a human-like way beforehand. These findings suggest that not only the behaviour of a computer partner but also the prior description of the partner is a critical factor influencing humans’ willingness to share task load.

Humans achieve their goals in joint action tasks either by cooperation or competition. In the present study, we investigated the neural processes underpinning error and monetary rewards processing in such cooperative and competitive situations. We used electroencephalography (EEG) and analyzed event-related potentials (ERPs) triggered by feedback in both social situations. 26 dyads performed a joint four-alternative forced choice (4AFC) visual task either cooperatively or competitively. At the end of each trial, participants received performance feedback about their individual and joint errors and accompanying monetary rewards. Furthermore, the outcome, i.e., resulting positive, negative, or neutral rewards, was dependent on the pay-off matrix, defining the social situation either as cooperative or competitive. We used linear mixed effects models to analyze the feedback-related-negativity (FRN) and used the Threshold-free cluster enhancement (TFCE) method to explore activations of all electrodes and times. We found main effects of the outcome and social situation, but no interaction at mid-line frontal electrodes. The FRN was more negative for losses than wins in both social situations. However, the FRN amplitudes differed between social situations. Moreover, we compared monetary with neutral outcomes in both social situations. Our exploratory TFCE analysis revealed that processing of feedback differs between cooperative and competitive situations at right temporo-parietal electrodes where the cooperative situation elicited more positive amplitudes. Further, the differences induced by the social situations were stronger in participants with higher scores on a perspective taking test. In sum, our results replicate previous studies about the FRN and extend them by comparing neurophysiological responses to positive and negative outcomes in a task that simultaneously engages two participants in competitive and cooperative situations.

Human information processing is limited by attentional resources. That is, via attentional mechanisms humans select information that is relevant for their goals, and discard other information. While limitations of attentional processing have been investigated extensively in each sensory modality, there is debate as to whether sensory modalities access shared resources, or if instead distinct resources are dedicated to individual sensory modalities. Research addressing this question has used dual task designs, with two tasks performed either in a single sensory modality or in two separate modalities. The rationale is that, if two tasks performed in separate sensory modalities interfere less or not at all compared to two tasks performed in the same sensory modality, then attentional resources are distinct across the sensory modalities. If task interference is equal regardless of whether tasks are performed in separate sensory modalities or the same sensory modality, then attentional resources are shared across the sensory modalities. Due to their complexity, dual task designs face many methodological difficulties. In the present review, we discuss potential confounds and countermeasures. In particular, we discuss 1) compound interference measures to circumvent problems with participants dividing attention unequally across tasks, 2) staircase procedures to match difficulty levels of tasks and counteracting problems with interpreting results, 3) choosing tasks that continuously engage participants to minimize issues arising from task switching, and 4) reducing motor demands to avoid sources of task interference, which are independent of the involved sensory modalities.

In daily life, humans often perform perceptual tasks together to reach a shared goal. In these situations, individuals may collaborate (e.g., by distributing task demands) to perform the task better than when the task is performed alone (i.e., attain a group benefit). In this review, we identify the factors influencing if, and to what extent, a group benefit is attained and provide a framework of measures to assess group benefits in perceptual tasks. In particular, we integrate findings from two frequently investigated joint perceptual tasks: visuospatial tasks and decision-making tasks. For both task types, we find that an exchange of information between coactors is critical to improve joint performance. Yet, the type of exchanged information and how coactors collaborate differs between tasks. In visuospatial tasks, coactors exchange information about the performed actions to distribute task demands. In perceptual decision-making tasks, coactors exchange their confidence on their individual perceptual judgments to negotiate a joint decision. We argue that these differences can be explained by the task structure: coactors distribute task demands if a joint task allows for a spatial division and stimuli can be accurately processed by one individual. Otherwise, they perform the task individually and then integrate their individual judgments.

In a recently published study [1], we investigated how human pupil sizes are modulated by task experience as well as attentional load in a visuospatial task. In particular, participants performed a multiple object tracking (MOT) task while pupil sizes were recorded using binocular eyetracking measurements. To vary the attentional load, participants performed the MOT task either tracking zero or up to five targets. To manipulate the task experience, participants performed the MOT task on three consecutive days. We found that pupil sizes systematically increased with attentional load and decreased with additional task experience. For all these analyses, we averaged across the pupil sizes for the left and right eye. However, findings of a recent study [2] have suggested that also asymmetries in pupil sizes could be related to attentional processing. Given these findings, we further analyzed our data to investigate to what extent pupil size asymmetries are modulated by attentional load and task experience. We found a significant interaction effect between these two factors. That is, on the first day of the measurements, pupil size asymmetries were not modulated by attentional load while this was the case for the second and third day of the measurements. In particular, for the second and third day, pupil size asymmetries systematically increased with attentional load, indicating that attentional processing also modulates pupil size asymmetries. Given these results, we suggest that an increase in task experience (and associated reductions in arousal) uncover modulations in pupil size asymmetries related to attentional processing that are not observable for typical arousal levels. We suggest that these modulations could be a result of right-lateralized attentional processing in the brain that in turn influences structures involved in the control of pupil sizes such as the locus coeruleus. We can exclude a number of possible alternative explanations for this effect related to our experimental setup. Yet, given the novelty of this finding and the arguably speculative explanation of the underlying mechanisms, we suggest that future studies are needed to replicate the present effect and further investigate the underlying mechanisms.

Contains fulltext : 162706.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) In joint action, multiple people coordinate their actions to perform a task together. This often requires precise temporal and spatial coordination. How do co-actors achieve this? How do they coordinate their actions towards a shared task goal? Here we provide an overview of the mental representations involved in joint action, discuss how co-actors share sensorimotor information and what general mechanisms support coordination with others. By deliberately extending the review to aspects such as the cultural context in which a joint action takes place, we pay tribute to the complex and variable nature of this social phenomenon. 7 p.

In joint tasks, adjusting to the actions of others is critical for success. For joint visual search tasks, research has shown that when search partners visually receive information about each other's gaze, they use this information to adjust to each other's actions, resulting in faster search performance. The present study used a visual, a tactile and an auditory display, respectively, to provide search partners with information about each other's gaze. Results showed that search partners performed faster when the gaze information was received via a tactile or auditory display in comparison to receiving it via a visual display or receiving no gaze information. Findings demonstrate the effectiveness of tactile and auditory displays for receiving task-relevant information in joint tasks and are applicable to circumstances in which little or no visual information is available or the visual modality is already taxed with a demanding task such as air-traffic control. Practitioner Summary: The present study demonstrates that tactile and auditory displays are effective for receiving information about actions of others in joint tasks. Findings are either applicable to circumstances in which little or no visual information is available or when the visual modality is already taxed with a demanding task.

Human information processing is limited by attentional resources. Two questions that are discussed in multisensory research are (1) whether there are separate spatial attentional resources for each sensory modality and (2) whether multisensory integration is influenced by attentional load. We investigated these questions using a dual task paradigm: Participants performed two spatial tasks (a multiple object tracking [‘MOT’] task and a localization [‘LOC’] task) either separately (single task condition) or simultaneously (dual task condition). In the MOT task, participants visually tracked a small subset of several randomly moving objects. In the LOC task, participants either received visual, tactile, or redundant visual and tactile location cues. In the dual task condition, we found a substantial decrease in participants’ performance and an increase in participants’ mental effort (indicated by an increase in pupil size) relative to the single task condition. Importantly, participants performed equally well in the dual task condition regardless of whether they received visual, tactile, or redundant multisensory (visual and tactile) location cues in the LOC task. This result suggests that having spatial information coming from different modalities does not facilitate performance, thereby indicating shared spatial attentional resources for the tactile and visual modality. Also, we found that participants integrated redundant multisensory information optimally even when they experienced additional attentional load in the dual task condition. Overall, findings suggest that (1) spatial attentional resources for the tactile and visual modality overlap and that (2) the integration of spatial cues from these two modalities occurs at an early pre-attentive processing stage.

Human information processing is limited by attentional resources. That is, via attentional mechanisms, humans select a limited amount of sensory input to process while other sensory input is neglected. In multisensory research, a matter of ongoing debate is whether there are distinct pools of attentional resources for each sensory modality or whether attentional resources are shared across sensory modalities. Recent studies have suggested that attentional resource allocation across sensory modalities is in part task-dependent. That is, the recruitment of attentional resources across the sensory modalities depends on whether processing involves object-based attention (e.g., the discrimination of stimulus attributes) or spatial attention (e.g., the localization of stimuli). In the present paper, we review findings in multisensory research related to this view. For the visual and auditory sensory modalities, findings suggest that distinct resources are recruited when humans perform object-based attention tasks, whereas for the visual and tactile sensory modalities, partially shared resources are recruited. If object-based attention tasks are time-critical, shared resources are recruited across the sensory modalities. When humans perform an object-based attention task in combination with a spatial attention task, partly shared resources are recruited across the sensory modalities as well. Conversely, for spatial attention tasks, attentional processing does consistently involve shared attentional resources for the sensory modalities. Generally, findings suggest that the attentional system flexibly allocates attentional resources depending on task demands. We propose that such flexibility reflects a large-scale optimization strategy that minimizes the brain's costly resource expenditures and simultaneously maximizes capability to process currently relevant information.

Humans’ ability to detect relevant sensory information while being engaged in a demanding task is crucial in daily life. Yet, limited attentional resources restrict information processing. To date, it is still debated whether there are distinct pools of attentional resources for each sensory modality and to what extent the process of multisensory integration is dependent on attentional resources. We addressed these two questions using a dual task paradigm. Specifically, participants performed a multiple object tracking task and a detection task either separately or simultaneously. In the detection task, participants were required to detect visual, auditory, or audiovisual stimuli at varying stimulus intensities that were adjusted using a staircase procedure. We found that tasks significantly interfered. However, the interference was about 50% lower when tasks were performed in separate sensory modalities than in the same sensory modality, suggesting that attentional resources are partly shared. Moreover, we found that perceptual sensitivities were significantly improved for audiovisual stimuli relative to unisensory stimuli regardless of whether attentional resources were diverted to the multiple object tracking task or not. Overall, the present study supports the view that attentional resource allocation in multisensory processing is task-dependent and suggests that multisensory benefits are not dependent on attentional resources.