Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Improving productivity of road surfacing operations using value stream mapping and discrete event simulation

Improving productivity of road surfacing operations using value stream mapping and discrete event... Social cues, such as eye gaze and pointing fingers, can increase the prioritisation of specific locations for cognitive processing. A previous study using a manual reaching task showed that, although both gaze and pointing cues altered target prioritisation (reaction times [RTs]), only pointing cues affected action execution (trajectory deviations). These differential effects of gaze and pointing cues on action execution could be because the gaze cue was conveyed through a disembodied head; hence, the model lacked the potential for a body part (i.e., hands) to interact with the target. In the present study, the image of a male gaze model, whose gaze direction coincided with two potential target locations, was centrally presented. The model either had his arms and hands extended underneath the potential target locations, indicating the potential to act on the targets (Experiment 1), or had his arms crossed in front of his chest, indicating the absence of potential to act (Experiment 2). Participants reached to a target that followed a nonpredictive gaze cue at one of three stimulus onset asynchronies. RTs and reach trajectories of the movements to cued and uncued targets were analysed. RTs showed a facilitation effect for both experiments, whereas trajectory analysis revealed facilitatory and inhibitory effects, but only in Experiment 1 when the model could potentially act on the targets. The results of this study suggested that when the gaze model had the potential to interact with the cued target location, the model’s gaze affected not only target prioritisation but also movement execution. Keywords Visual attention; social cue; gaze perception; inhibition of return; goal-directed movements Received: 17 October 2022; revised: 8 February 2023; accepted: 16 February 2023 The gregarious nature of human existence permeates et al., 2021). In the context of visual perception, this phe- through every social interaction. Such nature is not only nomenon corresponds to when the observer orients to or manifested in verbal communication but, more intrigu- prioritises certain visual cues in their visual field. The ingly, via nonverbal means: A simple look in the eyes evaluation of orienting of attention has commonly relied could reveal a wealth of information regarding a person’s on various implicit measures, such as changes in response intention (Driver et al., 1999; Kendon, 1967) and modulate accuracy and reaction time (RTs; Frischen, Bayliss, & another person’s attention (Capozzi & Ristic, 2018; Dalmaso et al., 2020; Frischen, Bayliss, & Tipper, 2007). Faculty of Kinesiology & Physical Education, Centre for Motor Moreover, these characteristics are not restricted to eye Control, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada gaze because other social cues, such as finger-pointing, Department of Kinesiology, California State University, San Bernardino, San Bernardino, CA, USA also exhibit similar effects (Ariga & Watanabe, 2009). One Department of Psychology, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon of the widely studied phenomena in social cueing is the Tyne, UK orienting of attention. Granted that attention is a loaded Department of Psychology, University of Salford, Salford, UK term (Hommel et al., 2019; Posner & Boies, 1971), orient- Corresponding author: ing of attention generally refers to “the alignment of some Xiaoye Michael Wang, Centre for Motor Control, Faculty of internal mechanisms with an external sensory input source Kinesiology & Physical Education, University of Toronto, 55 Harbord St, that results in the preferential processing of that input” M5S 2W6, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. (Frischen, Bayliss, & Tipper, 2007, p. 701; also see McKay Email: michaelwxy.wang@utoronto.ca 2 Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 00(0) Tipper, 2007). The present study examines the effect of rarely observed with centrally presented gaze cues without visual cueing on the observers’ attention and action plan- sophisticated experimental manipulations (Frischen & ning and execution in an upper-limb reaching task. Tipper, 2004; Frischen, Smilek, et al., 2007). Therefore, The orienting of attention is commonly assessed given these different patterns of RTs, the relationship through the spatial-cueing paradigm, in which participants between mechanisms activated by social gaze cues and are instructed to respond to the appearance of a target at peripheral and central cues remains unclear. one of two potential locations with a key press. This para- Most existing research on the orienting of attention in digm commonly entails a nonpredictive cue (e.g., a periph- social cueing uses tasks requiring discrete button presses erally presented blinking light, a centrally presented arrow, and, as such, has only been able to examine RTs and/or or a shift in a centrally presented model’s eye gaze) being response accuracy in choice tasks. Deviating from this presented prior to the target at or directed towards one of tradition, Yoxon et al. (2019) used an upper-limb reach- the potential target locations. The key feature of the stimuli ing task to examine the facilitatory and inhibitory effects is that the cue is non-predictive (e.g., the cue may appear of gaze cues on attention and action execution. Upper- on the right, but the target could randomly appear on the limb reaching movements were employed because the left or right) such that there is no top-down advantage for characteristics of these movements can provide addi- the observer to orient attention based on the cue. Results of tional insight into how the central nervous system repre- the studies, however, have shown that this nonpredictive sents the excitation or inhibition of responses generated cue could affect the processing of the visual target, which by the cue during response selection and decision-mak- is commonly reflected through differences in participants’ ing (Howard & Tipper, 1997; Neyedli & Welsh, 2012; RTs to the target as a function of the relative locations of Welsh & Elliott, 2004 for reviews, see (Gallivan et al., the cue and the target. Cued targets are those that are pre- 2018; Song & Nakayama, 2009). Adopted from the clas- sented at a location consistent with the cue (i.e., the same sical spatial-cueing paradigm, Yoxon et al. presented location associated with the cue), whereas uncued targets two potential target locations flanking an image of either are those that are presented at a location that is not consist- a model’s disembodied head (Experiments 1 and 2) or a ent with the cue (i.e., a different location from the cue). disembodied pointed finger (Experiment 3). The cen- Generally, two types of effects are expected depending trally presented cueing model provided a nonpredictive on the temporal separation between the cue and target gaze or pointing cue to one of the potential target loca- onset (stimulus onset asynchrony, or SOA). First, RTs tions and the target was presented following one of the could be shorter for the cued targets than for the uncued many SOAs (from 100 to 2400 ms). Participants were targets at short SOAs (e.g., <200 ms) when there is little asked to ignore the cue and use their index finger to rap- time difference between the onset of the cue and the onset idly reach to and touch the target. The authors evaluated of the target. This facilitation effect is thought to occur the effects of the cue and SOAs on RTs (measured as the because the cue led to the short-term prioritisation of the time interval from the onset of the target to the move- cued location, increasing the efficiency with which the tar- ment initiation) and the initial movement angle (IMA) of get is processed relative to targets at other uncued loca- the reaching movement (calculated as the absolute angle tions. Second, RTs for the cued targets are actually longer between the principal axis [an imaginary central line than for the uncued targets when there is a longer time from the home position to the midpoint between the two (e.g., >300 ms) between the onset of the cue and the onset target locations] and the movement trajectory at 20% of of the target. These longer RTs are thought to emerge the reach). While RTs may reflect location prioritisation, because, as time elapses and no target appears, the short- IMAs reflect action planning. If the gaze cue exerts a term prioritisation coding decreases and is replaced by an facilitation effect on action planning (i.e., the cue acti- inhibitory coding activated at the location of the cue. This vates a response that would lead the participant to inter- inhibitory coding subsequently hinders or decreases the act with the cue), then IMAs should be smaller when efficiency of processing of a target that then appears at the moving to an uncued target than when moving to a cued location relative to other uncued locations. In a nonsocial target because the cue may have activated a response to context, this inhibitory aftereffect has been termed inhibi- the cued location that would interfere or combine with tion of return (IOR; Okamoto-Barth & Kawai, 2006 ; the subsequent response to the target, leading to a more Posner & Cohen, 1984; Posner et al., 1985). central response trajectory. If the gaze cue leads to the For centrally presented gaze cues, the facilitation effects activation of an inhibitory mechanism on the response to are typically observed at shorter SOAs, with peak facilita- the cue, then IMAs should be larger on uncued than cued tion effects appearing between 100 and 300 ms. Interstingly, target trials because this inhibitory mechanism might these facilitation effects persist at longer SOAs, even pre- reduce the representation of the response to the cue to sent between 700 and 1000 ms SOAs (Friesen & Kingstone, below baseline levels, leading to a more peripheral 1998; Frischen, Bayliss, & Tipper, 2007). Moreover, response trajectory away from the location of the cue. despite the pronounced facilitation effect, RT-based IOR is Such patterns of trajectory deviations have been shown Wang et al. 3 in rapid aiming responses following peripheral sudden and execution in a manual reaching task. In Experiment 1, onset cues (see Neyedli & Welsh, 2012; Welsh et al., a male’s upper body was presented with his arms extend- 2013). ing outwards with the hands placed below the potential In Experiment 1 of Yoxon et al. (2019), the centrally target locations. If the model’s potential to interact with the presented model head remained fixated on the target until target creates the conditions to enable his gaze cue to affect the end of the participant’s reaching movement. In con- the action system, then eye gaze cues in this condition trast, in Experiment 2, the gaze cue only lasted for 150 ms should lead to a facilitation effect on not only the partici- before the eyes of the model returned to a neutral gaze pants’ RTs, but also their reach trajectories. In Experiment direction. In both Experiments 1 and 2, RTs revealed a 2, the same model was presented but his arms were crossed facilitation effect consistent with previous gaze cueing lit- in front of his chest, removing his potential to interact with erature—a persistent facilitation effect without the emer- the target. If act-ability is the key feature that leads to acti- gence of an inhibition effect, even at long SOAs (Friesen vation of the motor system by the gaze cues, then there & Kingstone, 1998; Friesen et al., 2004; Frischen & Tipper, should be a facilitation effect in movement trajectories in 2004; Frischen, Bayliss, & Tipper, 2007). Interestingly, Experiment 1 when the hands of the model are near the despite the facilitation effects in RT, there were no differ- targets, but not in the movement trajectories in Experiment ences in IMA between movements to cued or uncued tar- 2 when the arms of the model are crossed. If the mere pres- gets. These findings suggest that the gaze cue only affects ence of a body and the arms of a model is sufficient to lead attention, but not action planning. In Experiment 3, Yoxon to motor system activation by the gaze cues (i.e., regard- and colleagues presented a pointing finger that remained less of the model’s act-ability), then facilitation effects in directed towards one of the target locations throughout the RTs and trajectories should be observed in both SOA period (similar to the gaze cues in Experiment 1). Experiments 1 and 2. The finding of trajectory deviations The data revealed a facilitation effect in both RTs and in Experiment 2 might suggest that the absence of trajec- IMAs, suggesting that the pointing cue also affects action tory deviations in Experiments 1 and 2 of Yoxon et al. planning. Based on the overall pattern of results, the (2019) may have been the result of the eye gaze cue being authors reasoned that eye gaze and finger-pointing cues presented in a disembodied head. are processed differently and that the hand cues may have a more prominent role or direct influence on the salience Experiment 1 of objects and locations for motor control. The differences in the patterns of trajectory deviations Methods between the eye gaze and pointing cues could be attributed Participants. Twenty adults (13 females and 7 males), aged to the compatibility between the cue and the effector between 19 and 46, participated in this experiment. All involved in the task (Welsh & Pratt, 2008; Welsh & participants were right-handed with normal or corrected- Zbinden, 2009; Yoxon et al., 2019). In the case of Yoxon to-normal vision. Participants provided full and informed et al. (2019), the finger-pointing cue is similar to the hand consent. All procedures were approved and were consist- used in the manual aiming task, allowing the cue to become ent with the standards of the University of Toronto salient to the attention/action system that underlies the Research Ethics Board. Based on the effect size reported aiming movement, which consequently affected the move- η = 02 . 3 in Yoxon et al. (2019) (Experiment 3, IMA, ), an ment planning and execution. Taken a step further, this p a priori power analysis using G*Power (Faul et al., 2007, conjecture implies that if the model which provides the cue 2009) showed that a sample size of 20 is sufficient to manifests the potential to interact with the target locations detect the facilitation effect in movement trajectories. through the same effectors as the participant uses in the response, the salience of the cue to the underlying atten- tion/action system should remain. If this is the case, then a Stimuli and apparatus. The stimuli were presented on an similar facilitation effect in the effector-based measure- Acer GD235HZ 24-inch monitor with a 1920 × 1080 res- ment (trajectory) as in the attention-based measurement olution and 60 Hz refresh rate. The monitor was slanted at (RT) should emerge. In a more concrete sense, predictions approximately 20° from the table facing the participant to based on this reasoning could be that the gaze cue should ensure comfort during the experiment. The experiment elicit a similar facilitation effect in trajectories as the point- was implemented in MATLAB (the Mathworks Inc.) using ing cue only when the gaze cue model has the potential to the Psychtoolbox-3 (Brainard, 1997; Kleiner et al., 2007; interact with the target with the hands. Borrowed from the Pelli, 1997). The experimental setup was similar to that in nomenclature of Gibson’s affordance theory (Gibson, Yoxon et al. (2019). For each trial, a home position (a blue 1986), this potential is referred to as act-ability, or the abil- circle with a 1.5 cm diameter) would appear 1 cm above ity to act on an object. the bottom edge of the screen, along with two unfilled blue The present study examines the effect of act-ability of squares (2 cm per side) as placeholders for the target. The the gaze cue model on attention and movement planning blue squares were 28 cm horizontally from each other and 4 Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 00(0) Figure 1. A schematic illustration of the experimental setup and timeline for a single trial in Experiments 1 (top) and 2 (bottom). Participants put their right index finger on the blue circle (home position) at the beginning of each trial. After 1,000 ms, the model would shift his gaze to one of the potential target locations. Following one of the stimulus onset asynchronies (SOA), one of the squares would turn solid, indicating that it was the target, and participants needed to reach to it as quickly as they could. 25 cm diagonally from the home position. An image of a movements. During data analysis, each participant’s screen young adult male was used as the cue model, placed calibration data were used to transform their respective between the two target placeholders. The male extended reaching trajectories (see Data analysis for details). his arms out with hands opened and facing upwards, placed Figure 1 (top) shows the timeline of a single trial. At the directly beneath the two placeholders as if he was ready to start of a trial, participants were presented with an image catch or grab them (Figure 1 top). Every object was dis- of the model with the eyes directed towards the partici- played against a light grey background. During each trial, pant. The participants placed their right index finger on the the movement of participants’ right index finger was home position. After 1000 ms, the model’s gaze direction tracked using an opto-electric motion tracking system shifted to the left or right, towards the location of one of (Optotrak, Northern Digital Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, Can- the target placeholders, and remained there for the rest of ada) with an infrared-emitting diode (IRED) that records the trial. After a variable SOA (100, 350, or 850 ms), one three-dimensional (3D) coordinates at a 250 Hz sampling of the unfilled squares turned solid (the target). Participants frequency. were instructed to reach to the solid target square as quickly as they could. The model’s gaze direction and the Procedure and design. After providing their full informed target location were independent of each other. Participants consent, participants were guided into a testing room and were informed of this nonpredictive gaze cue and were sat comfortably in front of the table with the slanted moni- instructed to fixate on the male model prior to the target tor. The experimenter would attach the IRED onto the par- onset. Positions of the participants’ index finger were ticipants’ right index finger. Prior to the experiment, recorded using Optotrak for 1,500 ms starting from the participants were instructed to perform a screen calibration moment the target was presented. Participants were procedure, where they would sequentially reach to each instructed to hold their finger at the target location until the corner of the screen. The end positions of each reach were 1,500 ms data collection window was completed. recorded to derive the 3D orientation of the screen, meas- Given the two target locations (left and right) and two ured in the same reference frame as the subsequent aiming gaze directions (left and right), the target could either be Wang et al. 5 cued (both the target location and gaze direction were the the time between the movement initiation and termination. same) or uncued (the target location and gaze direction Trials with RTs smaller than 100 ms (anticipation errors) or were opposite). Combined with three SOAs (100, 350, and greater than 1000 ms, or MTs greater than 1000 ms were 850 ms), there were 12 unique trial types (2 target locations removed (a total of 20 trials, or 0.56% of all data). × 2 gaze directions × 3 SOAs), which were treated as a After identifying the movement segment, trials with block. Trials within each block were presented in a random missing data were visually inspected to ensure that (1) the order. Each block was repeated for 16 times, resulting in missing data occurred outside the movement segment, and 192 trials. The first block was used as training and was not (2) there were no more than 15 consecutive missing data included in the analysis. The entire experiment took about points (equivalent to 60 ms) within the movement. Trials 45 min to complete. with more than 15 consecutive missing data points within the movement segment were discarded to ensure that the Data analysis. Data analysis was performed using a custom linear interpolation did not introduce artefacts to the trajec- Python movement analysis package and was divided into tory. A total of 34 trials, or 0.94% of the entire data set, the following steps. were discarded. One of the key challenges to statistically compare reach Spatial Calibration. Given the screen surface was at an trajectories between conditions is normalisation. As approximately 20° angle, each trajectory was first rotated Gallivan and Chapman (2014) reasoned, normalisation back to the transverse plane (Figure 2 Spatial Calibration). based on temporal re-sampling (i.e., re-sampling an equal With the four reference screen corners (, pp ,, pp ) and amount of points within evenly spaced fractions of the 12 34 the scikit-spatial Python library (Pedregosa et al., 2011), total MT) may introduce artefacts in the results as the tem- the surface norm, , for the best-fitting plane was derived poral aspect of the movement may covary with experimen- using singular value decomposition (see Soderkvist (2021) tal manipulation. To address this issue, each dimension of for detailed steps). Given the experiment’s coordinate sys- each trajectory was parameterized using a third-order tem, the rotation can be expressed using an axis-angle rep- B-spline (Figure 2 Preprocessing; Gallivan and Chapman, resentation: 2014; Ramsay & Silverman, 2005) with Python’s SciPy library (Virtanen et al., 2020). The resulting B-spline func- in ,arccos () ⋅ j () tion maps points of the trajectory onto their respective time stamps within a given MT. Using the parameterized trajec- Where i and are the unit vectors in the x (frontal axis) tory, each trajectory coordinate was sampled using 100 and y (longitudinal axis) directions, respectively. This rota- evenly spaced time stamps between movement initiation tion was applied to each trajectory, producing a reach with and termination. This approach retains the temporal x- and z-axes, or the frontal and sagittal axes, as the pri- aspects of each reach while producing an equal number of mary directions. data points across different trajectories, enabling spatial averaging. Finally, the fitted trajectories were centred at Preprocessing. Missing data due to marker occlusion the origin and the x-coordinates of the trajectory corre- from each trajectory were replaced using linear interpola- sponding to the target on the left were inverted so that all tion with the interp1d function from SciPy (Virtanen et al., movements were directed to the positive x direction. 2020). The locations of the missing data were recorded for visual inspection in a subsequent step. Then, a second-order Trajectory Analysis. To extract useful information from low-pass Butterworth filter (250 Hz sampling frequency, the fitted trajectories, trajectories were compiled and aver- 10 Hz cutoff frequency) was applied to each trajectory aged for each unique combination of participant, target dimension. Velocity along each axis was calculated using a location, and cue location (Figure 2 Trajectory Analysis). central difference method and was smoothed using the same The mean trajectories were also parameterized using the Butterworth filter. Subsequently, the Pythagorean of the two B-spline method. The goal of this trajectory analysis was to primary movement axes, x and z, was computed to identify investigate whether there were spatial deviations between the movement onset and termination time (Figure 2 Pre- the average trajectories corresponding to the cued and processing). With a 50 mm/s threshold, movement initia- uncued targets. Given the experimental setup, the x-axis tion and termination were defined as the moment when the (lateral direction) was of interest because this axis could velocity exceeded and dropped below the threshold, respec- reveal the bias towards or away from the target in the move- tively. In the case where there were several segments that ment trajectory. Regardless of the target location (due to the satisfied the movement criteria (e.g., false starts), we chose earlier sign inversion), the x values of movements that are the longest movement segment to distinguish the actual biased towards the target should be greater than those of movement from unnecessary movements incurred before or movements that are biased away from the target. Therefore, after the actual reach. RT is the time between the target onset comparisons of the x values between the cued and uncued and movement initiation, whereas movement time (MT) is targets should uncover any facilitatory and/or inhibitory 6 Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 00(0) Figure 2. Data Analysis Procedure. Spatial calibration: The four corners of the screen (blue dots) were used to derive the best-fitting plane (blue surface), which was then used to rotate the reach trajectory so that its primary directions were along the x- and z-axes. Preprocessing: A 50 mm/s threshold was applied to the Pythagorean of the velocity along the two primary directions (x- and z-axes) to determine the movement initiation (green dotted line) and termination (red dotted line) times. Subsequently, a third-order B-spline was applied to the coordinates of each axis to parameterize the reach trajectories. The black points were based on the original trajectory data whereas the red points were sampled from the B-spline function. Trajectory Analysis: Each trajectory starts at the home position (filled blue circle) and ends at one of the target positions (blue, unfilled squares). Trajectories from each participant within each unique combination of conditions (per target location and per gaze direction) were compiled and averaged. The cued (green) and uncued (red) average trajectories corresponding to the same target location were compared, where the B-spline function was integrated to identify the area between their respective x trajectories. effect in the movement. To this end, the area between the x-coordinates and x = 0 was numerically integrated between x-coordinates of the cued and uncued targets was com- every 20% of the reach (0%–20%, 20%–40%, etc.) using puted for each target location and each participant. With the built-in integration method in SciPy’s BSpline func- the trajectory centred at the origin, the area between the tion for the cued and uncued targets, respectively. Then, the Wang et al. 7 Figure 3. Reaction time (left; asterisks indicate significant difference between the cued and uncued targets at a specific SOA) and area between the average cued and uncued trajectories (right; asterisks indicate significant difference from 0) for Experiments 1 and 2. Error bars represent the 95% CIs. * p< .05, ** p< .01, *** p< .001. their interaction, area for the uncued target was subtracted from that for the Fp 17 ., 3328 .. 88 == 91,.001,. η = 032. () Figure 3 shows the mean RTs for different conditions. Post cued target to derive the area between the two curves. If the hoc comparisons showed that RTs were shorter for the cued gaze cue had a facilitatory effect on the aiming movement, trials than for the uncued trials (mean difference the cued area should be larger than the uncued, resulting in a positive area between the two curves. Alternatively, an =−92 ., 02 ms SE = ., 81 tp 19 =−32 ., 7 == ., 004 d −07 .) 3 . () For SOA, RTs for the 100 ms SOA were significantly larger inhibitory effect would result in a negative area. than those for the 350 ms SOA (mean difference == 42., 74 ms SE 45 ., 11 tp 99 =< ., 41 ., 001 d =−21 .) 2 , Statistical analysis. Repeated measures analysis of variance () and there was a difference between the 350 ms and 850 ms (ANOVA) was conducted on MT and RT with two within- SOAs that approached conventional levels of statistical sig- subject factors, SOA (3 levels: 100, 350, and 850 ms) and nificance mean difference = 8.04 ms, SE = 3.54, target (two levels: cued, uncued) using R’s ez package (tp 19 == 22 ., 7 ., 067 d = 05 . 1). Finally, the significant (Lawrence, 2016). Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were () interaction revealed the modulating effect of SOA on the applied to factors that did not satisfy the sphericity assump- facilitation effect of the social gaze cue. At 100 and 350 ms tion and are indicated by the decimal values in the reported SOAs, the cued trials had significantly shorter RTs than the degrees of freedom. For significant effects, post hoc sim- uncued trials (100 ms:mean difference = –10.36 ms, ple contrasts with Tukey’s corrections were calculated to SE = 37 ., 31 tp 92 == ., 78 ., 012 d =−06 .; 2 () 350 ms: mean determine the source of the effect. Another repeated meas- differencem =−16., 19 s SE = 40 ., 21 tp 94 =< ., 03 ., 001 d ures ANOVA was conducted on trajectory areas with SOA () = –0.90), whereas there was no difference between cued and (3 levels: 100, 350, and 850 ms) and trajectory segments (5 uncued trials at the 850 ms SOA (mean difference = levels: 0%–20%, . . ., 80%–100%) as two within-subject 10 ., 42 ms SE = ., 60 tp 19 == 04 ., 06 ., 90 d =− .) 09 . factors. Because the comparison between the trajectory () areas with 0 would indicate any facilitatory and/or inhibi- Movement time. There were no significant effects of SOA, tory effect, a series of one-sample t-tests comparing each , target, F (1,19) = 0.75, segment’s area with 0 was also conducted and their corre- Fp () 23 ,. 82 == 45,.10,. η = 011 p == ., 40 η 00 . 4, or their interaction, F(2,38) = 1.91, sponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. , on MTs. p == ., 16 η 00 . 9 Results Trajectory area. ANOVA did not show any significant main effects, SOA: Fp 17 ., 9340 .. 22 == 40,.11,. η = 011; Reaction time. A repeated measures ANOVA showed () trajectory segment: F(1.82,34.62) = 0.38, p = .66, that there was a significant effect of SOA, 2 2 . There was, however, a significant interaction, F (1.69,32.02) = 73.41, p <= ., 001 η 07 . 9, and target, η = 00 . 2 p p . As Figure 3 Fp 11 ,. 91 == 072,.004,. η = 037, as well as Fp 43 ., 4825 .. 52 == 95,.044,. η = 013 () () p p 8 Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 00(0) shows, at the 100 ms SOA, none of the trajectory segments gaze cue on action planning, whereas deviations during the were significantly different from 0, indicating a lack of later portion of the movement reflect an effect on action facilitatory or inhibitory effect of the gaze cue on move- execution and motor control. Yoxon et al. (2019) only ment execution. At the 350 ms SOA, the trajectory area examined the spatial characteristics of the movement at was significantly greater than 0 at 60%–80% of the trajec- exactly 20% of the movement, while the current study tory, tp () 39 == 25 ., 1 ., 016 d = 04 . 0, CI = [3.20, 29.88], looked at segments throughout the entire trajectory. This indicating a bias towards the target for the cued trials as more thorough approach revealed that the social gaze cue compared to uncued trials at around the middle-to-end por- had a facilitatory effect on movement execution when the tion of the reach, or a facilitatory effect. At the 850 ms SOA was short (350 ms), but the effect turned inhibitory SOA, the trajectory area was significantly smaller than 0, when the SOA was long (850 ms). The crossover from 60%–80%: tp 39 =−24 ., 5 == ., 019 d −03 . 9, CI = facilitation to inhibition occurred between the 350 and () [-28.85, -2.77]; 80%–100%: t(39) = -2.86, p= .007, 850 ms SOAs, which is consistent with previous findings d =−04 ., 6 CI = [-32.52, -5.58], which indicates move- on the IOR (see Klein (2000) for a review). More critically, ments with larger horizontal deviations to the uncued tar- the inhibitory effect only manifested in movement execu- get trials compared to cued target trials, or an inhibitory tion, but not in movement planning (indicated by a lack of effect. effect during the initial portion of the trajectory) or atten- tion (indicated by a lack of effect in RT). In sum, the results of the present study indicate that gaze cues may impact Discussion action planning if the model that presents the social gaze This experiment revealed two main findings. First, RTs cues appears able to interact with the potential target were shorter for the cued targets than the uncued targets at locations. short SOAs (100 and 350 ms), but not at long SOAs (850 ms). This finding in RT is consistent with results from Experiment 2 previous studies (Friesen & Kingstone, 1998; Frischen, Bayliss, & Tipper, 2007), both in terms of the timing Experiment 1 showed that introducing act-ability, or the (emerges as early as 100 ms SOA for centrally presented potential to interact with the targets, to the gaze cue model gaze cues; Frischen et al., 2007) and magnitude (between elicits activation of the motor system with varying degrees 10 and 20 ms of RT difference). This finding is slightly dif- of facilitation effects in RT as a function of SOA, as well ferent from what was reported in Experiment 1 of Yoxon as facilitatory and inhibitory effects in movement execu- et al. (2019), where they did not find the modulating effect tion (trajectories) across different SOAs. Unique to of SOAs on RTs (i.e., the interaction between target and Experiment 1 was the presence of the model’s torso and SOA was not statistically significant). Using the same limbs because the model formed a pose suggesting that the task, the only difference between the Yoxon et al. setup model was prepared to interact with the targets. Compared and that of the current experiment is that Yoxon et al. only to the disembodied head used in Yoxon et al. (2019), the showed a person’s disembodied head instead of his entire effect of act-ability could be confounded with the presence upper body with upper limbs. This difference potentially of the model’s torso and upper limbs. In other words, the indicates that, in the context of goal-directed actions, effects in Experiment 1 could be attributed to the presence social gaze cues would elicit facilitation effects and such of the model’s upper body (as opposed to a disembodied effects would diminish as SOA increased. Critically, the head) instead of his potential to interact with the targets emergence of such effects is contingent upon whether the (the pose of his arms). In Experiment 2, the same model gaze cue model also has a body and the potential to interact was used, but with his arms crossed in front of his chest, with the target in the same way that the participants might which ensured that the arms were still visible, but con- interact with it, that is, act-ability. trolled for the model’s perceived ability to interact with the Second, and more interestingly, although the social targets. If the results from Experiment 1 were attributed to gaze cue did not affect the temporal characteristics of the act-ability, the facilitatory and inhibitory effects in the tra- movement (MT), trajectory analysis showed that the gaze jectory analysis would disappear in the current experi- cue did affect the movement’s spatial characteristics. A ment. Alternatively, if they were attributed to the presence facilitatory effect was observed at 350 ms SOA (with tra- of the upper body, then results from the two experiments jectories deviating towards the location of the cue on should be comparable. Nonetheless, the effects of the cue uncued target trials), and an inhibitory effect was observed and SOA on RTs were still expected. at 850 ms during the second half of the reach (with trajec- tories deviating away from the location of the cue on Methods uncued target trials). As Welsh and Weeks (2010) sug- gested, deviations between the cued and uncued trials dur- Participants. Twenty adults (13 females and 7 males), aged ing the initial portion of the movement reflect an effect of between 18 and 34, participated in this study. All participants Wang et al. 9 were right-hand dominant with normal or corrected-to-nor- Movement time. ANOVA showed that there was a signifi- mal vision and none had participated in Experiment 1. They cant main effect of SOA, F(1.98,37.63) = 4.81, all provided full and informed consent. All procedures were p == ., 014 η 02 . 0, and of target, F(1,19) = 5.85, p = .26 η = 02 . 4 approved and were consistent with the standards of the Uni- , but not a significant interaction, versity of Toronto Research Ethics Board. Based on the effect Fp () 19 ., 2365 .. 20 == 46,.63,. η = 002 . Post hoc analy- η = 01 . 3 size reported in Experiment 1 ( p for the interaction sis showed that MTs were significantly smaller for the between SOA and trajectory segment), an a priori power cued targets than for the uncued targets, mean analysis using G*Power (Faul et al., 2007, 2009) showed that differencem =−28 ., 81 s SE = ., 19 tp 19 =−24 ., 2 = ., 026 d () a sample size of 20 is sufficient to detect the facilitatory and = –0.54. For the factor of SOA, there was no difference in inhibitory effects in trajectory area between reaches towards MTs between the 100 ms and 350 ms SOAs, mean differencem =−21 ., 51 s SE = ., 79 tp 19 =−12 ., 63 = ., 7 the cued and uncued targets. () d = –0.27, but MTs for the 850 ms SOA were significantly Stimuli and apparatus. The stimuli and apparatus for greater than those for the 350 ms SOA, mean differencem == 55 ., 21 sSE ., 79 tp 19 == 29 ., 90., 014 () Experiment 2 were identical to those of Experiment 1, d = except the same young adult male model had his arms 0.69. crossed in front of his chest (Figure 1 bottom). Trajectory area. Initially, Grubbs’ two-sided test for outliers Procedure and design. The procedure and design for Exper- with 95% CIs showed that there were 10 outlier segments iment 2 were identical to those of Experiment 1, where (out of 600; or 1.67%), which were removed from the anal- there were 16 blocks of 12 trials (2 target locations × 2 ysis. The ANOVA did not show any significant main Fp 23 ,. 80 == 006,.99,. η = 000 gaze directions × 3 SOAs), for a total of 192 trials, with effects, SOA: () ; trajec- the first 12 trials used as practice and not included in the tory segment: Fp 19 ., 5370 .. 92 == 23,.12,. η = 011, () subsequent data analysis. nor a significant interaction, F (4.07,77.41) = 0.13, p == ., 99 η 0.007. As Figure 3 suggests, one-sampled Data analysis. The analysis protocols for Experiment 2 t-tests did not show any trajectory segments being signifi- were identical to those of Experiment 1. Seventy-nine (79) cantly different from 0. trials (2.19% of the total trials) were removed due to the marker’s loss of tracking and another 14 trials (0.39%) Discussion were removed because their RTs were smaller than 100 ms or greater than 1000 ms, or their MT was greater than Participants in Experiment 2 were presented with a gaze 1000 ms. model with his arms crossed in front of his chest, eliminat- ing his potential to interact with the potential target (i.e., act-ability). Two main findings were reported. First, RT Results analysis revealed a facilitation effect of the gaze cue on Reaction time. A repeated-measures ANOVA showed a participants’ attention during a manual reaching task. significant main effect of SOA, F(1.56, 30.28) = Specifically, RTs for the cued target were shorter than 61., 69 p <= ., 001 η 07 . 6, and of target, F(1,19) = those for the uncued target when the SOA was relatively . There was also a significant short, at 100 and 350 ms, and this difference disappeared at 16., 75 p <= ., 001 η 04 . 7 interaction, Fp () 12 ., 8242 .. 67 == 07,.009,. η = 027. As the longer SOA, at 850 ms. This finding is congruent with Figure 3 shows, RTs were shorter for cued targets than for what was reported in Experiment 1, suggesting the impor- uncued targets (mean difference = –7.86 ms, SE = 1.92, tance of the torso and upper limbs in eliciting the facilita- t(19) =−40 ., 9 pd <= ., 001 −09 . 2). For SOAs, RTs for the tion effect. Second, trajectory area analysis did not show 100 ms SOA were significantly greater than those for the any significant effects for any SOA. This finding is con- 350 ms SOA mean difference = 28.79 ms, SE = 3.18, sistent with the earlier prediction where the social gaze cue tp 19 =< 90 ., 6 ., 001 d =−20 . 2 ( () ), and the difference in does not affect motor execution when the cueing model RTs between the 350 ms and 850 ms SOAs was also sig- does not have the potential or ability to interact with the nificant (mean difference = 6.84 ms, SE =2.73, t(19) target. 25 ., 1 pd ., 042 = 05 . 6 ). For the interaction effect, the cued RTs were only smaller than the uncued RTs when the General discussion SOA was 100 ms and 350 ms— 100 ms: mean difference = =< 39 ., 9 pd ., 001 = 08 . 9 8.72 ms, SE =2.19, t=(19) ; The current study investigated the underlying mechanisms 350 ms: mean difference = 14.61 ms, SE = 3.57, t(19) of social cueing on movement execution. Following the =< 40 ., 9 pd ., 001 = 09 . 2—but not 850 ms, mean approach of an earlier study (Yoxon et al., 2019), the pre- difference == 02 ., 42 ms SE ., 88 tp () 19 == 00 ., 89 ., 4 d = sent study used an upper-limb reaching task to evaluate the 0.02. facilitatory and inhibitory effects of a non-predictive gaze = = 10 Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 00(0) cue on attention and motor control. Unlike Yoxon et al., existence of a third visual pathway dedicated to the which presented the social gaze cue via a disembodied dynamic aspect of social perception (relatedly, also see head, participants in the current study were presented with Stephenson et al. (2021) for a review on the neural sub- the entire upper body of a gaze cue model that either had strates that contribute to the shared-attention system). In the potential to interact with the target (Experiment 1) or terms of connectivity, this new pathway is hypothesised to not (Experiment 2). Both temporal (RT and MT) and spa- start at the early visual cortex (V1) and project to the tial (trajectory area) characteristics of the movement were medial temporal area (V5/MT) before ending at the supe- evaluated. For the temporal characteristics, both experi- rior temporal sulcus (STS). The human STS has been ments showed a modulating effect of the SOA on RTs for shown to respond to various types of visual stimuli that are the cued and uncued targets, where RTs for the cued targets social in nature, such as biological motion (Thompson were shorter than the uncued targets when the SOA was et al., 2005), human voice (Kriegstein & Giraud, 2004), relatively short (100 and 350 ms). RTs on cued and uncued language (Wilson et al., 2018), and, more relevantly, eye target trials were not different at a longer SOA (850 ms). gaze (Engell & Haxby, 2007; Pelphrey et al., 2004). These Analysis of the spatial characteristics of the movement findings suggest the potential role that the STS plays in revealed something more intriguing—a facilitation effect establishing the gaze cueing effect. Furthermore, the at the 350 ms SOA and an inhibitory effect at the 850 ms involvement of the motion selective area V5/MT is also SOA that emerged at around the middle-to-end portion of crucial for the present discussion. Because the majority of the movement. This pattern emerged in Experiment 1 the cells in V5/MT are directionally selective (DS), it is when the hands of the model were near the targets, but not considered to be specialised in visual motion (see Zeki in Experiment 2 when the hands of the model were not (2015) for a review). Gilaie-Dotan (2016) suggested that near the targets. This contrast implies that social gaze cues V5/MT, along with the medial superior temporal (MST) may have a context-dependent influence on movement area, utilises the non-hierarchical connections to propagate execution, where the act-ability of the model may produce relevant visual information to other brain areas, including gaze cues that lead to motor system activation. those of the dorsal pathway that are responsible for visu- Recall that Yoxon et al. (2019) found differing effects ally guided reaching (Whitney et al., 2007). of gaze cues (from a disembodied head) and finger-point- Combining the knowledge of STS and the hypothesised ing cues on movement planning and execution. Specifically, third, dynamic social pathway with that of V5/MT, the although gaze and finger-pointing cues led to changes in implication of results from the current study becomes RTs, only finger-pointing cues affected reach trajectories. apparent. As the current study revealed, gaze cues could The current study provided the gaze model with the poten- indeed affect movement execution. The mediating effect of tial to interact with the target. Doing so mitigated the dis- the temporal offset between the gaze cue and target onsets crepancy between the head-only and finger-only stimuli on movement execution is consistent with the implied rela- and produced similar results in the reach trajectory as tionship between the dorsal and the dynamic social path- those reported in the finger-only experiment of Yoxon ways. The common information processing component, et al. This overall set of findings implies that a gaze cue V5/MT, could have contributed to the relationship between that is made more socially- or action-relevant (via the pres- gaze cues (dynamic social pathway) and movement execu- ence of implied action) may be crucial in enabling the gaze tion (dorsal pathway). Because the movement deviations cue’s effect on motor execution and control. Consistent due to the gaze cue occur at the later portion of the reach, it with this idea, Chen et al. (2020) compared the cueing is likely that the information processed through the dynamic effect of a pointing finger with that of a pointing foot. social pathway is projected to the dorsal pathway. The Whereas the hand cue elicited the facilitation effect, the motor system, therefore, utilises both the direct input from foot cue did not. In a social setting, directional cues are V5/MT and the input from the dynamic social pathway. normally conveyed through hands, not feet. Therefore, the Because of the neural processing delay, the influence of the effect of directional social cues on attention and movement dynamic social pathway may not emerge until during the execution should also be contingent upon the social rele- later stage of action execution. vance of the cue itself: The addition of the gaze cue mod- It should be noted here that a potential limitation of the el’s torso and upper limbs, especially when the hands have current study is the between-subject design for Experiments the potential to interact with the target, also contributed to 1 and 2. This design was adopted to avoid any carry-over the enhanced social relevance of the cue. effects that may incur in a within-subject design—present- The intricate interaction among motor planning and ing participants with the same gaze model with and with- execution, social perception, and attention could poten- out act-ability in the same session may produce unwarranted tially be related to the interaction between different visual bias in either condition (but more critically could lead par- pathways. In addition to the ventral (perception) and dor- ticipants to intuit that the model without act-ability [in the sal (action) pathways that emerge from early visual cen- hands-crossed condition] could potentially act on the tres, Pitcher and Ungerleider (2021) suggested the object). Furthermore, key predictions for the present study Wang et al. 11 Research, 51(4), 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- focused on the presence (Experiment 1) or absence 5884.2009.00408.x (Experiment 2) of trajectory deviations, rather than on Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, potential relative differences in the magnitude of any tra- 10(4), 433–436. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856897X00357 jectory deviations. Given the design and critical predic- Capozzi, F., & Ristic, J. (2018). How attention gates social tions, RT and trajectory comparisons were performed interactions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, between conditions (cued vs. uncued trials) within the 1426(1), 179–198. same experiment. Such within-experiment comparisons Chen, M. M. Z., Karlinsky, A., & Welsh, T. N. (2020). Hand, but are sufficient to reveal the presence and absence of the not foot, cues generate increases in salience at the pointed- facilitatory and inhibitory effects in target prioritisation at location. Acta Psychologica, 210, 103165. https://doi. and action planning and execution. Future studies may org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103165 consider adopting a within-subject design to provide an Dalmaso, M., Castelli, L., & Galfano, G. (2020). Social modu- lators of gaze-mediated orienting of attention: A review. alternative approach to testing the hypotheses. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27(5), 833–855. Finally, the results from the current study are consistent Driver, J., Davis, G., Ricciardelli, P., Kidd, P., Maxwell, E., & with calls for a shift in the methodology through which one Baron-Cohen, S. (1999). Gaze perception triggers reflexive should investigate the spatial cueing effect (e.g., Gallivan visuospatial orienting. Visual Cognition, 6(5), 509–540. et al., 2018; Song & Nakayama, 2009). As mentioned in the https://doi.org/10.1080/135062899394920 Introduction, orienting of attention has been commonly Engell, A. D., & Haxby, J. V. (2007). Facial expression studied using the spatial-cueing paradigm, which involves and gaze-direction in human superior temporal sulcus. measurements such as RT using tasks such as button press- Neuropsychologia, 45(14), 3234–3241. ing (e.g., Posner & Cohen, 1984) or eye tracking (e.g., Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Rafal et al., 1989). However, in the context of social cueing Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for under a more naturalistic setting, gaze cues tend to be asso- correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/ ciated with action execution. Because of the potential link BRM.41.4.1149 between social perception and motor control, adopting an Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). action-based evaluation method could yield more insights G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program into the effects of social gaze cues from a functional per- for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior spective. In conclusion, the present study established a con- Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/ nection between social gaze cue and movement execution, BF03193146 where allowing the gaze cue model to have the potential to Friesen, C. K., & Kingstone, A. (1998). The eyes have it! interact with the target enabled the social gaze cue to influ- Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze. ence movement execution. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(3), 490–495. https://doi. org/10.3758/BF03208827 Acknowledgements Friesen, C. K., Ristic, J., & Kingstone, A. (2004). Attentional effects of counterpredictive gaze and arrow cues. Journal We would like to thank Goran Perkic for being the gaze cue of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and model and Jacob Burgess in assisting to collect part of the data Performance, 30(2), 319. for this study. We would also like to thank Luis Jiménez and Frischen, A., Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). Gaze cueing another reviewer for their thoughtful comments during the review of attention: Visual attention, social cognition, and individ- process. ual differences. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 694–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.694 Declaration of conflicting interests Frischen, A., Smilek, D., Eastwood, J. D., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with Inhibition of return in response to gaze cues: The roles of time respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this course and fixation cue. Visual Cognition, 15(8), 881–895. article. Frischen, A., & Tipper, S. P. (2004). Orienting attention via observed gaze shift evokes longer term inhibitory effects: Funding Implications for social interactions, attention, and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(4), The author(s) received no financial support for the research, 516–533. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.4.516 authorship, and/or publication of this article. Gallivan, J. P., & Chapman, C. S. (2014). Three-dimensional reach trajectories as a probe of real-time decision-mak- ORCID iD ing between multiple competing targets. Frontiers in Xiaoye Michael Wang https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1272-368X Neuroscience, 8, 00215. https://www.frontiersin.org/arti- cles/10.3389/fnins.2014.00215 References Gallivan, J. P., Chapman, C. S., Wolpert, D. M., & Flanagan, J. R. (2018). Decision-making in sensorimotor control. Nature Ariga, A., & Watanabe, K. (2009). What is special about the Reviews Neuroscience, 19(9), 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/ index finger? The index finger advantage in manipulat- s41583-018-0045-9 ing reflexive attentional shift1. Japanese Psychological 12 Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 00(0) Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual percep- Rafal, R., Calabresi, P., Brennan, C., & Sciolto, T. (1989). tion (New edition). Psychology Press. Saccade preparation inhibits reorienting to recently attended Gilaie-Dotan, S. (2016). Visual motion serves but is not under locations. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human the purview of the dorsal pathway. Neuropsychologia, Perception and Performance, 15, 673–685. https://doi. 89, 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsycholo- org/10.1037//0096-1523.15.4.673 gia.2016.07.018 Ramsay, J. O., & Silverman, B. W. (2005). Functional data anal- Hommel, B., Chapman, C. S., Cisek, P., Neyedli, H. F., Song, J.- ysis (2nd ed). Springer. H., & Welsh, T. N. (2019). No one knows what attention is. Soderkvist, I. (2021). Using SVD for some fitting problems. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(7), 2288–2303. https://www.ltu.se/cms_fs/1.51590!/svd-fitting.pdf Howard, L. A., & Tipper, S. (1997). Hand deviations away from Song, J.-H., & Nakayama, K. (2009). Hidden cognitive states visual cues: Indirect evidence for inhibition. Experimental revealed in choice reaching tasks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Brain Research, 113(1), 144–152. 13(8), 360–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.009 Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social Stephenson, L. J., Edwards, S. G., & Bayliss, A. P. (2021). From interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22–63. https://doi. gaze perception to social cognition: The shared-attention org/10.1016/0001-6918(67)90005-4 system. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(3), 553– Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive 576. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620953773 Sciences, 4(4), 138–147. Thompson, J. C., Clarke, M., Stewart, T., & Puce, A. (2005). Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., & Pelli, D. (2007). What’s new in Configural processing of biological motion in human superior Psychtoolbox-3? ECVP Abstract Supplement, 2007(14), 361. temporal sulcus. Journal of Neuroscience, 25(39), 9059–9066. Kriegstein, K. V., & Giraud, A.-L. (2004). Distinct functional Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., substrates along the right superior temporal sulcus for the Reddy, T., Cournapeau, D., Burovski, E., Peterson, P., processing of voices. NeuroImage, 22(2), 948–955. Weckesser, W., Bright, J., van der Walt, S. J., Brett, M., Lawrence, M. A. (2016). ez: Easy analysis and visualization of fac- Wilson, J., Millman, K. J., Mayorov, N., Nelson, A. R. torial experiments. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ez J., Jones, E., Kern, R., Larson, E., & Vázquez-Baeza, Y. McKay, K. T., Grainger, S. A., Coundouris, S. P., Skorich, D. (2020). SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific P., Phillips, L. H., & Henry, J. D. (2021). Visual attentional computing in Python. Nature Methods, 17(3), 261–272. orienting by eye gaze: A meta-analytic review of the gaze- https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 cueing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 147(12), 1269. Welsh, T. N., & Elliott, D. (2004). Movement trajectories in the Neyedli, H. F., & Welsh, T. N. (2012). The processes of facilita- presence of a distracting stimulus: Evidence for a response tion and inhibition in a cue–target paradigm: Insight from activation model of selective reaching. The Quarterly movement trajectory deviations. Acta Psychologica, 139(1), Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 57(6), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.11.001 1031–1057. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000666 Okamoto-Barth, S., & Kawai, N. (2006). The role of attention Welsh, T. N., Neyedli, H., & Tremblay, L. (2013). Refining in the facilitation effect and another “inhibition of return.” the time course of facilitation and inhibition in attention Cognition, 101(3), B42–B50. and action. Neuroscience Letters, 554, 6–10. https://doi. Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, org/10.1016/j.neulet.2013.08.055 B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Welsh, T. N., & Pratt, J. (2008). Actions modulate attentional cap- Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., & Cournapeau, D. ture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(7), (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal 968–976. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210801943960 of Machine Learning, 12, 2825–2830. Welsh, T. N., & Weeks, D. J. (2010). Visual selective attention Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psycho- and action. In D. Elliott & M. A. Khan (Eds.), Vision and physics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, goal-directed movement: Neurobehavioral perspectives 10(4), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856897x00366 (pp. 39–58). Human Kinetics. Pelphrey, K. A., Viola, R. J., & McCarthy, G. (2004). When Welsh, T. N., & Zbinden, M. (2009). Fitts’s law in a selective strangers pass: Processing of mutual and averted social gaze reaching task: The proximity-to-hand effect of action-cen- in the superior temporal sulcus. Psychological Science, tered attention revisited. Motor Control, 13(1), 100–112. 15(9), 598–603. Whitney, D., Ellison, A., Rice, N. J., Arnold, D., Goodale, M., Pitcher, D., & Ungerleider, L. G. (2021). Evidence for a third Walsh, V., & Milner, D. (2007). Visually guided reaching visual pathway specialized for social perception. Trends depends on motion area MT+. Cerebral Cortex, 17(11), in Cognitive Sciences, 25(2), 100–110. https://doi. 2644–2649. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhl172 org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.11.006 Wilson, S. M., Bautista, A., & McCarron, A. (2018). Convergence Posner, M. I., & Boies, S. J. (1971). Components of atten- of spoken and written language processing in the superior tion. Psychological Review, 78(5), 391–408. https://doi. temporal sulcus. NeuroImage, 171, 62–74. org/10.1037/h0031333 Yoxon, E., Constable, M. D., & Welsh, T. N. (2019). Probing Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual ori- the time course of facilitation and inhibition in gaze cue- enting. Attention and Performance X: Control of Language ing of attention in an upper-limb reaching task. Attention, Processes, 32, 531–556. Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(7), 2410–2423. https:// Posner, M. I., Rafal, R. D., Choate, L. S., & Vaughan, J. (1985). doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01821-5 Inhibition of return: Neural basis and function. Cognitive Zeki, S. (2015). Area V5—A microcosm of the visual brain. Neuropsychology, 2(3), 211–228. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 9, 21. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management Unpaywall

Improving productivity of road surfacing operations using value stream mapping and discrete event simulation

Construction Innovation: Information, Process, ManagementJul 10, 2017

Loading next page...
 
/lp/unpaywall/improving-productivity-of-road-surfacing-operations-using-value-stream-vJ7eRF8hPn

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Unpaywall
ISSN
1471-4175
DOI
10.1108/ci-11-2016-0058
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Social cues, such as eye gaze and pointing fingers, can increase the prioritisation of specific locations for cognitive processing. A previous study using a manual reaching task showed that, although both gaze and pointing cues altered target prioritisation (reaction times [RTs]), only pointing cues affected action execution (trajectory deviations). These differential effects of gaze and pointing cues on action execution could be because the gaze cue was conveyed through a disembodied head; hence, the model lacked the potential for a body part (i.e., hands) to interact with the target. In the present study, the image of a male gaze model, whose gaze direction coincided with two potential target locations, was centrally presented. The model either had his arms and hands extended underneath the potential target locations, indicating the potential to act on the targets (Experiment 1), or had his arms crossed in front of his chest, indicating the absence of potential to act (Experiment 2). Participants reached to a target that followed a nonpredictive gaze cue at one of three stimulus onset asynchronies. RTs and reach trajectories of the movements to cued and uncued targets were analysed. RTs showed a facilitation effect for both experiments, whereas trajectory analysis revealed facilitatory and inhibitory effects, but only in Experiment 1 when the model could potentially act on the targets. The results of this study suggested that when the gaze model had the potential to interact with the cued target location, the model’s gaze affected not only target prioritisation but also movement execution. Keywords Visual attention; social cue; gaze perception; inhibition of return; goal-directed movements Received: 17 October 2022; revised: 8 February 2023; accepted: 16 February 2023 The gregarious nature of human existence permeates et al., 2021). In the context of visual perception, this phe- through every social interaction. Such nature is not only nomenon corresponds to when the observer orients to or manifested in verbal communication but, more intrigu- prioritises certain visual cues in their visual field. The ingly, via nonverbal means: A simple look in the eyes evaluation of orienting of attention has commonly relied could reveal a wealth of information regarding a person’s on various implicit measures, such as changes in response intention (Driver et al., 1999; Kendon, 1967) and modulate accuracy and reaction time (RTs; Frischen, Bayliss, & another person’s attention (Capozzi & Ristic, 2018; Dalmaso et al., 2020; Frischen, Bayliss, & Tipper, 2007). Faculty of Kinesiology & Physical Education, Centre for Motor Moreover, these characteristics are not restricted to eye Control, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada gaze because other social cues, such as finger-pointing, Department of Kinesiology, California State University, San Bernardino, San Bernardino, CA, USA also exhibit similar effects (Ariga & Watanabe, 2009). One Department of Psychology, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon of the widely studied phenomena in social cueing is the Tyne, UK orienting of attention. Granted that attention is a loaded Department of Psychology, University of Salford, Salford, UK term (Hommel et al., 2019; Posner & Boies, 1971), orient- Corresponding author: ing of attention generally refers to “the alignment of some Xiaoye Michael Wang, Centre for Motor Control, Faculty of internal mechanisms with an external sensory input source Kinesiology & Physical Education, University of Toronto, 55 Harbord St, that results in the preferential processing of that input” M5S 2W6, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. (Frischen, Bayliss, & Tipper, 2007, p. 701; also see McKay Email: michaelwxy.wang@utoronto.ca 2 Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 00(0) Tipper, 2007). The present study examines the effect of rarely observed with centrally presented gaze cues without visual cueing on the observers’ attention and action plan- sophisticated experimental manipulations (Frischen & ning and execution in an upper-limb reaching task. Tipper, 2004; Frischen, Smilek, et al., 2007). Therefore, The orienting of attention is commonly assessed given these different patterns of RTs, the relationship through the spatial-cueing paradigm, in which participants between mechanisms activated by social gaze cues and are instructed to respond to the appearance of a target at peripheral and central cues remains unclear. one of two potential locations with a key press. This para- Most existing research on the orienting of attention in digm commonly entails a nonpredictive cue (e.g., a periph- social cueing uses tasks requiring discrete button presses erally presented blinking light, a centrally presented arrow, and, as such, has only been able to examine RTs and/or or a shift in a centrally presented model’s eye gaze) being response accuracy in choice tasks. Deviating from this presented prior to the target at or directed towards one of tradition, Yoxon et al. (2019) used an upper-limb reach- the potential target locations. The key feature of the stimuli ing task to examine the facilitatory and inhibitory effects is that the cue is non-predictive (e.g., the cue may appear of gaze cues on attention and action execution. Upper- on the right, but the target could randomly appear on the limb reaching movements were employed because the left or right) such that there is no top-down advantage for characteristics of these movements can provide addi- the observer to orient attention based on the cue. Results of tional insight into how the central nervous system repre- the studies, however, have shown that this nonpredictive sents the excitation or inhibition of responses generated cue could affect the processing of the visual target, which by the cue during response selection and decision-mak- is commonly reflected through differences in participants’ ing (Howard & Tipper, 1997; Neyedli & Welsh, 2012; RTs to the target as a function of the relative locations of Welsh & Elliott, 2004 for reviews, see (Gallivan et al., the cue and the target. Cued targets are those that are pre- 2018; Song & Nakayama, 2009). Adopted from the clas- sented at a location consistent with the cue (i.e., the same sical spatial-cueing paradigm, Yoxon et al. presented location associated with the cue), whereas uncued targets two potential target locations flanking an image of either are those that are presented at a location that is not consist- a model’s disembodied head (Experiments 1 and 2) or a ent with the cue (i.e., a different location from the cue). disembodied pointed finger (Experiment 3). The cen- Generally, two types of effects are expected depending trally presented cueing model provided a nonpredictive on the temporal separation between the cue and target gaze or pointing cue to one of the potential target loca- onset (stimulus onset asynchrony, or SOA). First, RTs tions and the target was presented following one of the could be shorter for the cued targets than for the uncued many SOAs (from 100 to 2400 ms). Participants were targets at short SOAs (e.g., <200 ms) when there is little asked to ignore the cue and use their index finger to rap- time difference between the onset of the cue and the onset idly reach to and touch the target. The authors evaluated of the target. This facilitation effect is thought to occur the effects of the cue and SOAs on RTs (measured as the because the cue led to the short-term prioritisation of the time interval from the onset of the target to the move- cued location, increasing the efficiency with which the tar- ment initiation) and the initial movement angle (IMA) of get is processed relative to targets at other uncued loca- the reaching movement (calculated as the absolute angle tions. Second, RTs for the cued targets are actually longer between the principal axis [an imaginary central line than for the uncued targets when there is a longer time from the home position to the midpoint between the two (e.g., >300 ms) between the onset of the cue and the onset target locations] and the movement trajectory at 20% of of the target. These longer RTs are thought to emerge the reach). While RTs may reflect location prioritisation, because, as time elapses and no target appears, the short- IMAs reflect action planning. If the gaze cue exerts a term prioritisation coding decreases and is replaced by an facilitation effect on action planning (i.e., the cue acti- inhibitory coding activated at the location of the cue. This vates a response that would lead the participant to inter- inhibitory coding subsequently hinders or decreases the act with the cue), then IMAs should be smaller when efficiency of processing of a target that then appears at the moving to an uncued target than when moving to a cued location relative to other uncued locations. In a nonsocial target because the cue may have activated a response to context, this inhibitory aftereffect has been termed inhibi- the cued location that would interfere or combine with tion of return (IOR; Okamoto-Barth & Kawai, 2006 ; the subsequent response to the target, leading to a more Posner & Cohen, 1984; Posner et al., 1985). central response trajectory. If the gaze cue leads to the For centrally presented gaze cues, the facilitation effects activation of an inhibitory mechanism on the response to are typically observed at shorter SOAs, with peak facilita- the cue, then IMAs should be larger on uncued than cued tion effects appearing between 100 and 300 ms. Interstingly, target trials because this inhibitory mechanism might these facilitation effects persist at longer SOAs, even pre- reduce the representation of the response to the cue to sent between 700 and 1000 ms SOAs (Friesen & Kingstone, below baseline levels, leading to a more peripheral 1998; Frischen, Bayliss, & Tipper, 2007). Moreover, response trajectory away from the location of the cue. despite the pronounced facilitation effect, RT-based IOR is Such patterns of trajectory deviations have been shown Wang et al. 3 in rapid aiming responses following peripheral sudden and execution in a manual reaching task. In Experiment 1, onset cues (see Neyedli & Welsh, 2012; Welsh et al., a male’s upper body was presented with his arms extend- 2013). ing outwards with the hands placed below the potential In Experiment 1 of Yoxon et al. (2019), the centrally target locations. If the model’s potential to interact with the presented model head remained fixated on the target until target creates the conditions to enable his gaze cue to affect the end of the participant’s reaching movement. In con- the action system, then eye gaze cues in this condition trast, in Experiment 2, the gaze cue only lasted for 150 ms should lead to a facilitation effect on not only the partici- before the eyes of the model returned to a neutral gaze pants’ RTs, but also their reach trajectories. In Experiment direction. In both Experiments 1 and 2, RTs revealed a 2, the same model was presented but his arms were crossed facilitation effect consistent with previous gaze cueing lit- in front of his chest, removing his potential to interact with erature—a persistent facilitation effect without the emer- the target. If act-ability is the key feature that leads to acti- gence of an inhibition effect, even at long SOAs (Friesen vation of the motor system by the gaze cues, then there & Kingstone, 1998; Friesen et al., 2004; Frischen & Tipper, should be a facilitation effect in movement trajectories in 2004; Frischen, Bayliss, & Tipper, 2007). Interestingly, Experiment 1 when the hands of the model are near the despite the facilitation effects in RT, there were no differ- targets, but not in the movement trajectories in Experiment ences in IMA between movements to cued or uncued tar- 2 when the arms of the model are crossed. If the mere pres- gets. These findings suggest that the gaze cue only affects ence of a body and the arms of a model is sufficient to lead attention, but not action planning. In Experiment 3, Yoxon to motor system activation by the gaze cues (i.e., regard- and colleagues presented a pointing finger that remained less of the model’s act-ability), then facilitation effects in directed towards one of the target locations throughout the RTs and trajectories should be observed in both SOA period (similar to the gaze cues in Experiment 1). Experiments 1 and 2. The finding of trajectory deviations The data revealed a facilitation effect in both RTs and in Experiment 2 might suggest that the absence of trajec- IMAs, suggesting that the pointing cue also affects action tory deviations in Experiments 1 and 2 of Yoxon et al. planning. Based on the overall pattern of results, the (2019) may have been the result of the eye gaze cue being authors reasoned that eye gaze and finger-pointing cues presented in a disembodied head. are processed differently and that the hand cues may have a more prominent role or direct influence on the salience Experiment 1 of objects and locations for motor control. The differences in the patterns of trajectory deviations Methods between the eye gaze and pointing cues could be attributed Participants. Twenty adults (13 females and 7 males), aged to the compatibility between the cue and the effector between 19 and 46, participated in this experiment. All involved in the task (Welsh & Pratt, 2008; Welsh & participants were right-handed with normal or corrected- Zbinden, 2009; Yoxon et al., 2019). In the case of Yoxon to-normal vision. Participants provided full and informed et al. (2019), the finger-pointing cue is similar to the hand consent. All procedures were approved and were consist- used in the manual aiming task, allowing the cue to become ent with the standards of the University of Toronto salient to the attention/action system that underlies the Research Ethics Board. Based on the effect size reported aiming movement, which consequently affected the move- η = 02 . 3 in Yoxon et al. (2019) (Experiment 3, IMA, ), an ment planning and execution. Taken a step further, this p a priori power analysis using G*Power (Faul et al., 2007, conjecture implies that if the model which provides the cue 2009) showed that a sample size of 20 is sufficient to manifests the potential to interact with the target locations detect the facilitation effect in movement trajectories. through the same effectors as the participant uses in the response, the salience of the cue to the underlying atten- tion/action system should remain. If this is the case, then a Stimuli and apparatus. The stimuli were presented on an similar facilitation effect in the effector-based measure- Acer GD235HZ 24-inch monitor with a 1920 × 1080 res- ment (trajectory) as in the attention-based measurement olution and 60 Hz refresh rate. The monitor was slanted at (RT) should emerge. In a more concrete sense, predictions approximately 20° from the table facing the participant to based on this reasoning could be that the gaze cue should ensure comfort during the experiment. The experiment elicit a similar facilitation effect in trajectories as the point- was implemented in MATLAB (the Mathworks Inc.) using ing cue only when the gaze cue model has the potential to the Psychtoolbox-3 (Brainard, 1997; Kleiner et al., 2007; interact with the target with the hands. Borrowed from the Pelli, 1997). The experimental setup was similar to that in nomenclature of Gibson’s affordance theory (Gibson, Yoxon et al. (2019). For each trial, a home position (a blue 1986), this potential is referred to as act-ability, or the abil- circle with a 1.5 cm diameter) would appear 1 cm above ity to act on an object. the bottom edge of the screen, along with two unfilled blue The present study examines the effect of act-ability of squares (2 cm per side) as placeholders for the target. The the gaze cue model on attention and movement planning blue squares were 28 cm horizontally from each other and 4 Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 00(0) Figure 1. A schematic illustration of the experimental setup and timeline for a single trial in Experiments 1 (top) and 2 (bottom). Participants put their right index finger on the blue circle (home position) at the beginning of each trial. After 1,000 ms, the model would shift his gaze to one of the potential target locations. Following one of the stimulus onset asynchronies (SOA), one of the squares would turn solid, indicating that it was the target, and participants needed to reach to it as quickly as they could. 25 cm diagonally from the home position. An image of a movements. During data analysis, each participant’s screen young adult male was used as the cue model, placed calibration data were used to transform their respective between the two target placeholders. The male extended reaching trajectories (see Data analysis for details). his arms out with hands opened and facing upwards, placed Figure 1 (top) shows the timeline of a single trial. At the directly beneath the two placeholders as if he was ready to start of a trial, participants were presented with an image catch or grab them (Figure 1 top). Every object was dis- of the model with the eyes directed towards the partici- played against a light grey background. During each trial, pant. The participants placed their right index finger on the the movement of participants’ right index finger was home position. After 1000 ms, the model’s gaze direction tracked using an opto-electric motion tracking system shifted to the left or right, towards the location of one of (Optotrak, Northern Digital Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, Can- the target placeholders, and remained there for the rest of ada) with an infrared-emitting diode (IRED) that records the trial. After a variable SOA (100, 350, or 850 ms), one three-dimensional (3D) coordinates at a 250 Hz sampling of the unfilled squares turned solid (the target). Participants frequency. were instructed to reach to the solid target square as quickly as they could. The model’s gaze direction and the Procedure and design. After providing their full informed target location were independent of each other. Participants consent, participants were guided into a testing room and were informed of this nonpredictive gaze cue and were sat comfortably in front of the table with the slanted moni- instructed to fixate on the male model prior to the target tor. The experimenter would attach the IRED onto the par- onset. Positions of the participants’ index finger were ticipants’ right index finger. Prior to the experiment, recorded using Optotrak for 1,500 ms starting from the participants were instructed to perform a screen calibration moment the target was presented. Participants were procedure, where they would sequentially reach to each instructed to hold their finger at the target location until the corner of the screen. The end positions of each reach were 1,500 ms data collection window was completed. recorded to derive the 3D orientation of the screen, meas- Given the two target locations (left and right) and two ured in the same reference frame as the subsequent aiming gaze directions (left and right), the target could either be Wang et al. 5 cued (both the target location and gaze direction were the the time between the movement initiation and termination. same) or uncued (the target location and gaze direction Trials with RTs smaller than 100 ms (anticipation errors) or were opposite). Combined with three SOAs (100, 350, and greater than 1000 ms, or MTs greater than 1000 ms were 850 ms), there were 12 unique trial types (2 target locations removed (a total of 20 trials, or 0.56% of all data). × 2 gaze directions × 3 SOAs), which were treated as a After identifying the movement segment, trials with block. Trials within each block were presented in a random missing data were visually inspected to ensure that (1) the order. Each block was repeated for 16 times, resulting in missing data occurred outside the movement segment, and 192 trials. The first block was used as training and was not (2) there were no more than 15 consecutive missing data included in the analysis. The entire experiment took about points (equivalent to 60 ms) within the movement. Trials 45 min to complete. with more than 15 consecutive missing data points within the movement segment were discarded to ensure that the Data analysis. Data analysis was performed using a custom linear interpolation did not introduce artefacts to the trajec- Python movement analysis package and was divided into tory. A total of 34 trials, or 0.94% of the entire data set, the following steps. were discarded. One of the key challenges to statistically compare reach Spatial Calibration. Given the screen surface was at an trajectories between conditions is normalisation. As approximately 20° angle, each trajectory was first rotated Gallivan and Chapman (2014) reasoned, normalisation back to the transverse plane (Figure 2 Spatial Calibration). based on temporal re-sampling (i.e., re-sampling an equal With the four reference screen corners (, pp ,, pp ) and amount of points within evenly spaced fractions of the 12 34 the scikit-spatial Python library (Pedregosa et al., 2011), total MT) may introduce artefacts in the results as the tem- the surface norm, , for the best-fitting plane was derived poral aspect of the movement may covary with experimen- using singular value decomposition (see Soderkvist (2021) tal manipulation. To address this issue, each dimension of for detailed steps). Given the experiment’s coordinate sys- each trajectory was parameterized using a third-order tem, the rotation can be expressed using an axis-angle rep- B-spline (Figure 2 Preprocessing; Gallivan and Chapman, resentation: 2014; Ramsay & Silverman, 2005) with Python’s SciPy library (Virtanen et al., 2020). The resulting B-spline func- in ,arccos () ⋅ j () tion maps points of the trajectory onto their respective time stamps within a given MT. Using the parameterized trajec- Where i and are the unit vectors in the x (frontal axis) tory, each trajectory coordinate was sampled using 100 and y (longitudinal axis) directions, respectively. This rota- evenly spaced time stamps between movement initiation tion was applied to each trajectory, producing a reach with and termination. This approach retains the temporal x- and z-axes, or the frontal and sagittal axes, as the pri- aspects of each reach while producing an equal number of mary directions. data points across different trajectories, enabling spatial averaging. Finally, the fitted trajectories were centred at Preprocessing. Missing data due to marker occlusion the origin and the x-coordinates of the trajectory corre- from each trajectory were replaced using linear interpola- sponding to the target on the left were inverted so that all tion with the interp1d function from SciPy (Virtanen et al., movements were directed to the positive x direction. 2020). The locations of the missing data were recorded for visual inspection in a subsequent step. Then, a second-order Trajectory Analysis. To extract useful information from low-pass Butterworth filter (250 Hz sampling frequency, the fitted trajectories, trajectories were compiled and aver- 10 Hz cutoff frequency) was applied to each trajectory aged for each unique combination of participant, target dimension. Velocity along each axis was calculated using a location, and cue location (Figure 2 Trajectory Analysis). central difference method and was smoothed using the same The mean trajectories were also parameterized using the Butterworth filter. Subsequently, the Pythagorean of the two B-spline method. The goal of this trajectory analysis was to primary movement axes, x and z, was computed to identify investigate whether there were spatial deviations between the movement onset and termination time (Figure 2 Pre- the average trajectories corresponding to the cued and processing). With a 50 mm/s threshold, movement initia- uncued targets. Given the experimental setup, the x-axis tion and termination were defined as the moment when the (lateral direction) was of interest because this axis could velocity exceeded and dropped below the threshold, respec- reveal the bias towards or away from the target in the move- tively. In the case where there were several segments that ment trajectory. Regardless of the target location (due to the satisfied the movement criteria (e.g., false starts), we chose earlier sign inversion), the x values of movements that are the longest movement segment to distinguish the actual biased towards the target should be greater than those of movement from unnecessary movements incurred before or movements that are biased away from the target. Therefore, after the actual reach. RT is the time between the target onset comparisons of the x values between the cued and uncued and movement initiation, whereas movement time (MT) is targets should uncover any facilitatory and/or inhibitory 6 Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 00(0) Figure 2. Data Analysis Procedure. Spatial calibration: The four corners of the screen (blue dots) were used to derive the best-fitting plane (blue surface), which was then used to rotate the reach trajectory so that its primary directions were along the x- and z-axes. Preprocessing: A 50 mm/s threshold was applied to the Pythagorean of the velocity along the two primary directions (x- and z-axes) to determine the movement initiation (green dotted line) and termination (red dotted line) times. Subsequently, a third-order B-spline was applied to the coordinates of each axis to parameterize the reach trajectories. The black points were based on the original trajectory data whereas the red points were sampled from the B-spline function. Trajectory Analysis: Each trajectory starts at the home position (filled blue circle) and ends at one of the target positions (blue, unfilled squares). Trajectories from each participant within each unique combination of conditions (per target location and per gaze direction) were compiled and averaged. The cued (green) and uncued (red) average trajectories corresponding to the same target location were compared, where the B-spline function was integrated to identify the area between their respective x trajectories. effect in the movement. To this end, the area between the x-coordinates and x = 0 was numerically integrated between x-coordinates of the cued and uncued targets was com- every 20% of the reach (0%–20%, 20%–40%, etc.) using puted for each target location and each participant. With the built-in integration method in SciPy’s BSpline func- the trajectory centred at the origin, the area between the tion for the cued and uncued targets, respectively. Then, the Wang et al. 7 Figure 3. Reaction time (left; asterisks indicate significant difference between the cued and uncued targets at a specific SOA) and area between the average cued and uncued trajectories (right; asterisks indicate significant difference from 0) for Experiments 1 and 2. Error bars represent the 95% CIs. * p< .05, ** p< .01, *** p< .001. their interaction, area for the uncued target was subtracted from that for the Fp 17 ., 3328 .. 88 == 91,.001,. η = 032. () Figure 3 shows the mean RTs for different conditions. Post cued target to derive the area between the two curves. If the hoc comparisons showed that RTs were shorter for the cued gaze cue had a facilitatory effect on the aiming movement, trials than for the uncued trials (mean difference the cued area should be larger than the uncued, resulting in a positive area between the two curves. Alternatively, an =−92 ., 02 ms SE = ., 81 tp 19 =−32 ., 7 == ., 004 d −07 .) 3 . () For SOA, RTs for the 100 ms SOA were significantly larger inhibitory effect would result in a negative area. than those for the 350 ms SOA (mean difference == 42., 74 ms SE 45 ., 11 tp 99 =< ., 41 ., 001 d =−21 .) 2 , Statistical analysis. Repeated measures analysis of variance () and there was a difference between the 350 ms and 850 ms (ANOVA) was conducted on MT and RT with two within- SOAs that approached conventional levels of statistical sig- subject factors, SOA (3 levels: 100, 350, and 850 ms) and nificance mean difference = 8.04 ms, SE = 3.54, target (two levels: cued, uncued) using R’s ez package (tp 19 == 22 ., 7 ., 067 d = 05 . 1). Finally, the significant (Lawrence, 2016). Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were () interaction revealed the modulating effect of SOA on the applied to factors that did not satisfy the sphericity assump- facilitation effect of the social gaze cue. At 100 and 350 ms tion and are indicated by the decimal values in the reported SOAs, the cued trials had significantly shorter RTs than the degrees of freedom. For significant effects, post hoc sim- uncued trials (100 ms:mean difference = –10.36 ms, ple contrasts with Tukey’s corrections were calculated to SE = 37 ., 31 tp 92 == ., 78 ., 012 d =−06 .; 2 () 350 ms: mean determine the source of the effect. Another repeated meas- differencem =−16., 19 s SE = 40 ., 21 tp 94 =< ., 03 ., 001 d ures ANOVA was conducted on trajectory areas with SOA () = –0.90), whereas there was no difference between cued and (3 levels: 100, 350, and 850 ms) and trajectory segments (5 uncued trials at the 850 ms SOA (mean difference = levels: 0%–20%, . . ., 80%–100%) as two within-subject 10 ., 42 ms SE = ., 60 tp 19 == 04 ., 06 ., 90 d =− .) 09 . factors. Because the comparison between the trajectory () areas with 0 would indicate any facilitatory and/or inhibi- Movement time. There were no significant effects of SOA, tory effect, a series of one-sample t-tests comparing each , target, F (1,19) = 0.75, segment’s area with 0 was also conducted and their corre- Fp () 23 ,. 82 == 45,.10,. η = 011 p == ., 40 η 00 . 4, or their interaction, F(2,38) = 1.91, sponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. , on MTs. p == ., 16 η 00 . 9 Results Trajectory area. ANOVA did not show any significant main effects, SOA: Fp 17 ., 9340 .. 22 == 40,.11,. η = 011; Reaction time. A repeated measures ANOVA showed () trajectory segment: F(1.82,34.62) = 0.38, p = .66, that there was a significant effect of SOA, 2 2 . There was, however, a significant interaction, F (1.69,32.02) = 73.41, p <= ., 001 η 07 . 9, and target, η = 00 . 2 p p . As Figure 3 Fp 11 ,. 91 == 072,.004,. η = 037, as well as Fp 43 ., 4825 .. 52 == 95,.044,. η = 013 () () p p 8 Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 00(0) shows, at the 100 ms SOA, none of the trajectory segments gaze cue on action planning, whereas deviations during the were significantly different from 0, indicating a lack of later portion of the movement reflect an effect on action facilitatory or inhibitory effect of the gaze cue on move- execution and motor control. Yoxon et al. (2019) only ment execution. At the 350 ms SOA, the trajectory area examined the spatial characteristics of the movement at was significantly greater than 0 at 60%–80% of the trajec- exactly 20% of the movement, while the current study tory, tp () 39 == 25 ., 1 ., 016 d = 04 . 0, CI = [3.20, 29.88], looked at segments throughout the entire trajectory. This indicating a bias towards the target for the cued trials as more thorough approach revealed that the social gaze cue compared to uncued trials at around the middle-to-end por- had a facilitatory effect on movement execution when the tion of the reach, or a facilitatory effect. At the 850 ms SOA was short (350 ms), but the effect turned inhibitory SOA, the trajectory area was significantly smaller than 0, when the SOA was long (850 ms). The crossover from 60%–80%: tp 39 =−24 ., 5 == ., 019 d −03 . 9, CI = facilitation to inhibition occurred between the 350 and () [-28.85, -2.77]; 80%–100%: t(39) = -2.86, p= .007, 850 ms SOAs, which is consistent with previous findings d =−04 ., 6 CI = [-32.52, -5.58], which indicates move- on the IOR (see Klein (2000) for a review). More critically, ments with larger horizontal deviations to the uncued tar- the inhibitory effect only manifested in movement execu- get trials compared to cued target trials, or an inhibitory tion, but not in movement planning (indicated by a lack of effect. effect during the initial portion of the trajectory) or atten- tion (indicated by a lack of effect in RT). In sum, the results of the present study indicate that gaze cues may impact Discussion action planning if the model that presents the social gaze This experiment revealed two main findings. First, RTs cues appears able to interact with the potential target were shorter for the cued targets than the uncued targets at locations. short SOAs (100 and 350 ms), but not at long SOAs (850 ms). This finding in RT is consistent with results from Experiment 2 previous studies (Friesen & Kingstone, 1998; Frischen, Bayliss, & Tipper, 2007), both in terms of the timing Experiment 1 showed that introducing act-ability, or the (emerges as early as 100 ms SOA for centrally presented potential to interact with the targets, to the gaze cue model gaze cues; Frischen et al., 2007) and magnitude (between elicits activation of the motor system with varying degrees 10 and 20 ms of RT difference). This finding is slightly dif- of facilitation effects in RT as a function of SOA, as well ferent from what was reported in Experiment 1 of Yoxon as facilitatory and inhibitory effects in movement execu- et al. (2019), where they did not find the modulating effect tion (trajectories) across different SOAs. Unique to of SOAs on RTs (i.e., the interaction between target and Experiment 1 was the presence of the model’s torso and SOA was not statistically significant). Using the same limbs because the model formed a pose suggesting that the task, the only difference between the Yoxon et al. setup model was prepared to interact with the targets. Compared and that of the current experiment is that Yoxon et al. only to the disembodied head used in Yoxon et al. (2019), the showed a person’s disembodied head instead of his entire effect of act-ability could be confounded with the presence upper body with upper limbs. This difference potentially of the model’s torso and upper limbs. In other words, the indicates that, in the context of goal-directed actions, effects in Experiment 1 could be attributed to the presence social gaze cues would elicit facilitation effects and such of the model’s upper body (as opposed to a disembodied effects would diminish as SOA increased. Critically, the head) instead of his potential to interact with the targets emergence of such effects is contingent upon whether the (the pose of his arms). In Experiment 2, the same model gaze cue model also has a body and the potential to interact was used, but with his arms crossed in front of his chest, with the target in the same way that the participants might which ensured that the arms were still visible, but con- interact with it, that is, act-ability. trolled for the model’s perceived ability to interact with the Second, and more interestingly, although the social targets. If the results from Experiment 1 were attributed to gaze cue did not affect the temporal characteristics of the act-ability, the facilitatory and inhibitory effects in the tra- movement (MT), trajectory analysis showed that the gaze jectory analysis would disappear in the current experi- cue did affect the movement’s spatial characteristics. A ment. Alternatively, if they were attributed to the presence facilitatory effect was observed at 350 ms SOA (with tra- of the upper body, then results from the two experiments jectories deviating towards the location of the cue on should be comparable. Nonetheless, the effects of the cue uncued target trials), and an inhibitory effect was observed and SOA on RTs were still expected. at 850 ms during the second half of the reach (with trajec- tories deviating away from the location of the cue on Methods uncued target trials). As Welsh and Weeks (2010) sug- gested, deviations between the cued and uncued trials dur- Participants. Twenty adults (13 females and 7 males), aged ing the initial portion of the movement reflect an effect of between 18 and 34, participated in this study. All participants Wang et al. 9 were right-hand dominant with normal or corrected-to-nor- Movement time. ANOVA showed that there was a signifi- mal vision and none had participated in Experiment 1. They cant main effect of SOA, F(1.98,37.63) = 4.81, all provided full and informed consent. All procedures were p == ., 014 η 02 . 0, and of target, F(1,19) = 5.85, p = .26 η = 02 . 4 approved and were consistent with the standards of the Uni- , but not a significant interaction, versity of Toronto Research Ethics Board. Based on the effect Fp () 19 ., 2365 .. 20 == 46,.63,. η = 002 . Post hoc analy- η = 01 . 3 size reported in Experiment 1 ( p for the interaction sis showed that MTs were significantly smaller for the between SOA and trajectory segment), an a priori power cued targets than for the uncued targets, mean analysis using G*Power (Faul et al., 2007, 2009) showed that differencem =−28 ., 81 s SE = ., 19 tp 19 =−24 ., 2 = ., 026 d () a sample size of 20 is sufficient to detect the facilitatory and = –0.54. For the factor of SOA, there was no difference in inhibitory effects in trajectory area between reaches towards MTs between the 100 ms and 350 ms SOAs, mean differencem =−21 ., 51 s SE = ., 79 tp 19 =−12 ., 63 = ., 7 the cued and uncued targets. () d = –0.27, but MTs for the 850 ms SOA were significantly Stimuli and apparatus. The stimuli and apparatus for greater than those for the 350 ms SOA, mean differencem == 55 ., 21 sSE ., 79 tp 19 == 29 ., 90., 014 () Experiment 2 were identical to those of Experiment 1, d = except the same young adult male model had his arms 0.69. crossed in front of his chest (Figure 1 bottom). Trajectory area. Initially, Grubbs’ two-sided test for outliers Procedure and design. The procedure and design for Exper- with 95% CIs showed that there were 10 outlier segments iment 2 were identical to those of Experiment 1, where (out of 600; or 1.67%), which were removed from the anal- there were 16 blocks of 12 trials (2 target locations × 2 ysis. The ANOVA did not show any significant main Fp 23 ,. 80 == 006,.99,. η = 000 gaze directions × 3 SOAs), for a total of 192 trials, with effects, SOA: () ; trajec- the first 12 trials used as practice and not included in the tory segment: Fp 19 ., 5370 .. 92 == 23,.12,. η = 011, () subsequent data analysis. nor a significant interaction, F (4.07,77.41) = 0.13, p == ., 99 η 0.007. As Figure 3 suggests, one-sampled Data analysis. The analysis protocols for Experiment 2 t-tests did not show any trajectory segments being signifi- were identical to those of Experiment 1. Seventy-nine (79) cantly different from 0. trials (2.19% of the total trials) were removed due to the marker’s loss of tracking and another 14 trials (0.39%) Discussion were removed because their RTs were smaller than 100 ms or greater than 1000 ms, or their MT was greater than Participants in Experiment 2 were presented with a gaze 1000 ms. model with his arms crossed in front of his chest, eliminat- ing his potential to interact with the potential target (i.e., act-ability). Two main findings were reported. First, RT Results analysis revealed a facilitation effect of the gaze cue on Reaction time. A repeated-measures ANOVA showed a participants’ attention during a manual reaching task. significant main effect of SOA, F(1.56, 30.28) = Specifically, RTs for the cued target were shorter than 61., 69 p <= ., 001 η 07 . 6, and of target, F(1,19) = those for the uncued target when the SOA was relatively . There was also a significant short, at 100 and 350 ms, and this difference disappeared at 16., 75 p <= ., 001 η 04 . 7 interaction, Fp () 12 ., 8242 .. 67 == 07,.009,. η = 027. As the longer SOA, at 850 ms. This finding is congruent with Figure 3 shows, RTs were shorter for cued targets than for what was reported in Experiment 1, suggesting the impor- uncued targets (mean difference = –7.86 ms, SE = 1.92, tance of the torso and upper limbs in eliciting the facilita- t(19) =−40 ., 9 pd <= ., 001 −09 . 2). For SOAs, RTs for the tion effect. Second, trajectory area analysis did not show 100 ms SOA were significantly greater than those for the any significant effects for any SOA. This finding is con- 350 ms SOA mean difference = 28.79 ms, SE = 3.18, sistent with the earlier prediction where the social gaze cue tp 19 =< 90 ., 6 ., 001 d =−20 . 2 ( () ), and the difference in does not affect motor execution when the cueing model RTs between the 350 ms and 850 ms SOAs was also sig- does not have the potential or ability to interact with the nificant (mean difference = 6.84 ms, SE =2.73, t(19) target. 25 ., 1 pd ., 042 = 05 . 6 ). For the interaction effect, the cued RTs were only smaller than the uncued RTs when the General discussion SOA was 100 ms and 350 ms— 100 ms: mean difference = =< 39 ., 9 pd ., 001 = 08 . 9 8.72 ms, SE =2.19, t=(19) ; The current study investigated the underlying mechanisms 350 ms: mean difference = 14.61 ms, SE = 3.57, t(19) of social cueing on movement execution. Following the =< 40 ., 9 pd ., 001 = 09 . 2—but not 850 ms, mean approach of an earlier study (Yoxon et al., 2019), the pre- difference == 02 ., 42 ms SE ., 88 tp () 19 == 00 ., 89 ., 4 d = sent study used an upper-limb reaching task to evaluate the 0.02. facilitatory and inhibitory effects of a non-predictive gaze = = 10 Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 00(0) cue on attention and motor control. Unlike Yoxon et al., existence of a third visual pathway dedicated to the which presented the social gaze cue via a disembodied dynamic aspect of social perception (relatedly, also see head, participants in the current study were presented with Stephenson et al. (2021) for a review on the neural sub- the entire upper body of a gaze cue model that either had strates that contribute to the shared-attention system). In the potential to interact with the target (Experiment 1) or terms of connectivity, this new pathway is hypothesised to not (Experiment 2). Both temporal (RT and MT) and spa- start at the early visual cortex (V1) and project to the tial (trajectory area) characteristics of the movement were medial temporal area (V5/MT) before ending at the supe- evaluated. For the temporal characteristics, both experi- rior temporal sulcus (STS). The human STS has been ments showed a modulating effect of the SOA on RTs for shown to respond to various types of visual stimuli that are the cued and uncued targets, where RTs for the cued targets social in nature, such as biological motion (Thompson were shorter than the uncued targets when the SOA was et al., 2005), human voice (Kriegstein & Giraud, 2004), relatively short (100 and 350 ms). RTs on cued and uncued language (Wilson et al., 2018), and, more relevantly, eye target trials were not different at a longer SOA (850 ms). gaze (Engell & Haxby, 2007; Pelphrey et al., 2004). These Analysis of the spatial characteristics of the movement findings suggest the potential role that the STS plays in revealed something more intriguing—a facilitation effect establishing the gaze cueing effect. Furthermore, the at the 350 ms SOA and an inhibitory effect at the 850 ms involvement of the motion selective area V5/MT is also SOA that emerged at around the middle-to-end portion of crucial for the present discussion. Because the majority of the movement. This pattern emerged in Experiment 1 the cells in V5/MT are directionally selective (DS), it is when the hands of the model were near the targets, but not considered to be specialised in visual motion (see Zeki in Experiment 2 when the hands of the model were not (2015) for a review). Gilaie-Dotan (2016) suggested that near the targets. This contrast implies that social gaze cues V5/MT, along with the medial superior temporal (MST) may have a context-dependent influence on movement area, utilises the non-hierarchical connections to propagate execution, where the act-ability of the model may produce relevant visual information to other brain areas, including gaze cues that lead to motor system activation. those of the dorsal pathway that are responsible for visu- Recall that Yoxon et al. (2019) found differing effects ally guided reaching (Whitney et al., 2007). of gaze cues (from a disembodied head) and finger-point- Combining the knowledge of STS and the hypothesised ing cues on movement planning and execution. Specifically, third, dynamic social pathway with that of V5/MT, the although gaze and finger-pointing cues led to changes in implication of results from the current study becomes RTs, only finger-pointing cues affected reach trajectories. apparent. As the current study revealed, gaze cues could The current study provided the gaze model with the poten- indeed affect movement execution. The mediating effect of tial to interact with the target. Doing so mitigated the dis- the temporal offset between the gaze cue and target onsets crepancy between the head-only and finger-only stimuli on movement execution is consistent with the implied rela- and produced similar results in the reach trajectory as tionship between the dorsal and the dynamic social path- those reported in the finger-only experiment of Yoxon ways. The common information processing component, et al. This overall set of findings implies that a gaze cue V5/MT, could have contributed to the relationship between that is made more socially- or action-relevant (via the pres- gaze cues (dynamic social pathway) and movement execu- ence of implied action) may be crucial in enabling the gaze tion (dorsal pathway). Because the movement deviations cue’s effect on motor execution and control. Consistent due to the gaze cue occur at the later portion of the reach, it with this idea, Chen et al. (2020) compared the cueing is likely that the information processed through the dynamic effect of a pointing finger with that of a pointing foot. social pathway is projected to the dorsal pathway. The Whereas the hand cue elicited the facilitation effect, the motor system, therefore, utilises both the direct input from foot cue did not. In a social setting, directional cues are V5/MT and the input from the dynamic social pathway. normally conveyed through hands, not feet. Therefore, the Because of the neural processing delay, the influence of the effect of directional social cues on attention and movement dynamic social pathway may not emerge until during the execution should also be contingent upon the social rele- later stage of action execution. vance of the cue itself: The addition of the gaze cue mod- It should be noted here that a potential limitation of the el’s torso and upper limbs, especially when the hands have current study is the between-subject design for Experiments the potential to interact with the target, also contributed to 1 and 2. This design was adopted to avoid any carry-over the enhanced social relevance of the cue. effects that may incur in a within-subject design—present- The intricate interaction among motor planning and ing participants with the same gaze model with and with- execution, social perception, and attention could poten- out act-ability in the same session may produce unwarranted tially be related to the interaction between different visual bias in either condition (but more critically could lead par- pathways. In addition to the ventral (perception) and dor- ticipants to intuit that the model without act-ability [in the sal (action) pathways that emerge from early visual cen- hands-crossed condition] could potentially act on the tres, Pitcher and Ungerleider (2021) suggested the object). Furthermore, key predictions for the present study Wang et al. 11 Research, 51(4), 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- focused on the presence (Experiment 1) or absence 5884.2009.00408.x (Experiment 2) of trajectory deviations, rather than on Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, potential relative differences in the magnitude of any tra- 10(4), 433–436. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856897X00357 jectory deviations. Given the design and critical predic- Capozzi, F., & Ristic, J. (2018). How attention gates social tions, RT and trajectory comparisons were performed interactions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, between conditions (cued vs. uncued trials) within the 1426(1), 179–198. same experiment. Such within-experiment comparisons Chen, M. M. Z., Karlinsky, A., & Welsh, T. N. (2020). Hand, but are sufficient to reveal the presence and absence of the not foot, cues generate increases in salience at the pointed- facilitatory and inhibitory effects in target prioritisation at location. Acta Psychologica, 210, 103165. https://doi. and action planning and execution. Future studies may org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103165 consider adopting a within-subject design to provide an Dalmaso, M., Castelli, L., & Galfano, G. (2020). Social modu- lators of gaze-mediated orienting of attention: A review. alternative approach to testing the hypotheses. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27(5), 833–855. Finally, the results from the current study are consistent Driver, J., Davis, G., Ricciardelli, P., Kidd, P., Maxwell, E., & with calls for a shift in the methodology through which one Baron-Cohen, S. (1999). Gaze perception triggers reflexive should investigate the spatial cueing effect (e.g., Gallivan visuospatial orienting. Visual Cognition, 6(5), 509–540. et al., 2018; Song & Nakayama, 2009). As mentioned in the https://doi.org/10.1080/135062899394920 Introduction, orienting of attention has been commonly Engell, A. D., & Haxby, J. V. (2007). Facial expression studied using the spatial-cueing paradigm, which involves and gaze-direction in human superior temporal sulcus. measurements such as RT using tasks such as button press- Neuropsychologia, 45(14), 3234–3241. ing (e.g., Posner & Cohen, 1984) or eye tracking (e.g., Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Rafal et al., 1989). However, in the context of social cueing Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for under a more naturalistic setting, gaze cues tend to be asso- correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/ ciated with action execution. Because of the potential link BRM.41.4.1149 between social perception and motor control, adopting an Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). action-based evaluation method could yield more insights G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program into the effects of social gaze cues from a functional per- for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior spective. In conclusion, the present study established a con- Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/ nection between social gaze cue and movement execution, BF03193146 where allowing the gaze cue model to have the potential to Friesen, C. K., & Kingstone, A. (1998). The eyes have it! interact with the target enabled the social gaze cue to influ- Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze. ence movement execution. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(3), 490–495. https://doi. org/10.3758/BF03208827 Acknowledgements Friesen, C. K., Ristic, J., & Kingstone, A. (2004). Attentional effects of counterpredictive gaze and arrow cues. Journal We would like to thank Goran Perkic for being the gaze cue of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and model and Jacob Burgess in assisting to collect part of the data Performance, 30(2), 319. for this study. We would also like to thank Luis Jiménez and Frischen, A., Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). Gaze cueing another reviewer for their thoughtful comments during the review of attention: Visual attention, social cognition, and individ- process. ual differences. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 694–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.694 Declaration of conflicting interests Frischen, A., Smilek, D., Eastwood, J. D., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with Inhibition of return in response to gaze cues: The roles of time respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this course and fixation cue. Visual Cognition, 15(8), 881–895. article. Frischen, A., & Tipper, S. P. (2004). Orienting attention via observed gaze shift evokes longer term inhibitory effects: Funding Implications for social interactions, attention, and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(4), The author(s) received no financial support for the research, 516–533. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.4.516 authorship, and/or publication of this article. Gallivan, J. P., & Chapman, C. S. (2014). Three-dimensional reach trajectories as a probe of real-time decision-mak- ORCID iD ing between multiple competing targets. Frontiers in Xiaoye Michael Wang https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1272-368X Neuroscience, 8, 00215. https://www.frontiersin.org/arti- cles/10.3389/fnins.2014.00215 References Gallivan, J. P., Chapman, C. S., Wolpert, D. M., & Flanagan, J. R. (2018). Decision-making in sensorimotor control. Nature Ariga, A., & Watanabe, K. (2009). What is special about the Reviews Neuroscience, 19(9), 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/ index finger? The index finger advantage in manipulat- s41583-018-0045-9 ing reflexive attentional shift1. Japanese Psychological 12 Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 00(0) Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual percep- Rafal, R., Calabresi, P., Brennan, C., & Sciolto, T. (1989). tion (New edition). Psychology Press. Saccade preparation inhibits reorienting to recently attended Gilaie-Dotan, S. (2016). Visual motion serves but is not under locations. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human the purview of the dorsal pathway. Neuropsychologia, Perception and Performance, 15, 673–685. https://doi. 89, 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsycholo- org/10.1037//0096-1523.15.4.673 gia.2016.07.018 Ramsay, J. O., & Silverman, B. W. (2005). Functional data anal- Hommel, B., Chapman, C. S., Cisek, P., Neyedli, H. F., Song, J.- ysis (2nd ed). Springer. H., & Welsh, T. N. (2019). No one knows what attention is. Soderkvist, I. (2021). Using SVD for some fitting problems. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(7), 2288–2303. https://www.ltu.se/cms_fs/1.51590!/svd-fitting.pdf Howard, L. A., & Tipper, S. (1997). Hand deviations away from Song, J.-H., & Nakayama, K. (2009). Hidden cognitive states visual cues: Indirect evidence for inhibition. Experimental revealed in choice reaching tasks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Brain Research, 113(1), 144–152. 13(8), 360–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.009 Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social Stephenson, L. J., Edwards, S. G., & Bayliss, A. P. (2021). From interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22–63. https://doi. gaze perception to social cognition: The shared-attention org/10.1016/0001-6918(67)90005-4 system. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(3), 553– Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive 576. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620953773 Sciences, 4(4), 138–147. Thompson, J. C., Clarke, M., Stewart, T., & Puce, A. (2005). Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., & Pelli, D. (2007). What’s new in Configural processing of biological motion in human superior Psychtoolbox-3? ECVP Abstract Supplement, 2007(14), 361. temporal sulcus. Journal of Neuroscience, 25(39), 9059–9066. Kriegstein, K. V., & Giraud, A.-L. (2004). Distinct functional Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., substrates along the right superior temporal sulcus for the Reddy, T., Cournapeau, D., Burovski, E., Peterson, P., processing of voices. NeuroImage, 22(2), 948–955. Weckesser, W., Bright, J., van der Walt, S. J., Brett, M., Lawrence, M. A. (2016). ez: Easy analysis and visualization of fac- Wilson, J., Millman, K. J., Mayorov, N., Nelson, A. R. torial experiments. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ez J., Jones, E., Kern, R., Larson, E., & Vázquez-Baeza, Y. McKay, K. T., Grainger, S. A., Coundouris, S. P., Skorich, D. (2020). SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific P., Phillips, L. H., & Henry, J. D. (2021). Visual attentional computing in Python. Nature Methods, 17(3), 261–272. orienting by eye gaze: A meta-analytic review of the gaze- https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 cueing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 147(12), 1269. Welsh, T. N., & Elliott, D. (2004). Movement trajectories in the Neyedli, H. F., & Welsh, T. N. (2012). The processes of facilita- presence of a distracting stimulus: Evidence for a response tion and inhibition in a cue–target paradigm: Insight from activation model of selective reaching. The Quarterly movement trajectory deviations. Acta Psychologica, 139(1), Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 57(6), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.11.001 1031–1057. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000666 Okamoto-Barth, S., & Kawai, N. (2006). The role of attention Welsh, T. N., Neyedli, H., & Tremblay, L. (2013). Refining in the facilitation effect and another “inhibition of return.” the time course of facilitation and inhibition in attention Cognition, 101(3), B42–B50. and action. Neuroscience Letters, 554, 6–10. https://doi. Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, org/10.1016/j.neulet.2013.08.055 B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Welsh, T. N., & Pratt, J. (2008). Actions modulate attentional cap- Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., & Cournapeau, D. ture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(7), (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal 968–976. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210801943960 of Machine Learning, 12, 2825–2830. Welsh, T. N., & Weeks, D. J. (2010). Visual selective attention Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psycho- and action. In D. Elliott & M. A. Khan (Eds.), Vision and physics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, goal-directed movement: Neurobehavioral perspectives 10(4), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856897x00366 (pp. 39–58). Human Kinetics. Pelphrey, K. A., Viola, R. J., & McCarthy, G. (2004). When Welsh, T. N., & Zbinden, M. (2009). Fitts’s law in a selective strangers pass: Processing of mutual and averted social gaze reaching task: The proximity-to-hand effect of action-cen- in the superior temporal sulcus. Psychological Science, tered attention revisited. Motor Control, 13(1), 100–112. 15(9), 598–603. Whitney, D., Ellison, A., Rice, N. J., Arnold, D., Goodale, M., Pitcher, D., & Ungerleider, L. G. (2021). Evidence for a third Walsh, V., & Milner, D. (2007). Visually guided reaching visual pathway specialized for social perception. Trends depends on motion area MT+. Cerebral Cortex, 17(11), in Cognitive Sciences, 25(2), 100–110. https://doi. 2644–2649. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhl172 org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.11.006 Wilson, S. M., Bautista, A., & McCarron, A. (2018). Convergence Posner, M. I., & Boies, S. J. (1971). Components of atten- of spoken and written language processing in the superior tion. Psychological Review, 78(5), 391–408. https://doi. temporal sulcus. NeuroImage, 171, 62–74. org/10.1037/h0031333 Yoxon, E., Constable, M. D., & Welsh, T. N. (2019). Probing Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual ori- the time course of facilitation and inhibition in gaze cue- enting. Attention and Performance X: Control of Language ing of attention in an upper-limb reaching task. Attention, Processes, 32, 531–556. Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(7), 2410–2423. https:// Posner, M. I., Rafal, R. D., Choate, L. S., & Vaughan, J. (1985). doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01821-5 Inhibition of return: Neural basis and function. Cognitive Zeki, S. (2015). Area V5—A microcosm of the visual brain. Neuropsychology, 2(3), 211–228. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 9, 21.

Journal

Construction Innovation: Information, Process, ManagementUnpaywall

Published: Jul 10, 2017

There are no references for this article.