Limits...
Dual-route model of the effect of head orientation on perceived gaze direction.

Otsuka Y, Mareschal I, Calder AJ, Clifford CW - J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform (2014)

Bottom Line: We found that the perceived direction of gaze was generally biased in the opposite direction to head orientation (a repulsive effect).Based on these findings, we developed a dual-route model, which proposes that the 2 opposing effects of head orientation occur through 2 distinct routes.In the framework of this dual-route model, we explain and reconcile the findings from previous studies, and provide a functional account of attractive and repulsive effects and their interaction.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Psychology, The University of Sydney.

ABSTRACT
Previous studies on gaze perception have identified 2 opposing effects of head orientation on perceived gaze direction-1 repulsive and the other attractive. However, the relationship between these 2 effects has remained unclear. By using a gaze categorization task, the current study examined the effect of head orientation on the perceived direction of gaze in a whole-head condition and an eye-region condition. We found that the perceived direction of gaze was generally biased in the opposite direction to head orientation (a repulsive effect). Importantly, the magnitude of the repulsive effect was more pronounced in the eye-region condition than in the whole-head condition. Based on these findings, we developed a dual-route model, which proposes that the 2 opposing effects of head orientation occur through 2 distinct routes. In the framework of this dual-route model, we explain and reconcile the findings from previous studies, and provide a functional account of attractive and repulsive effects and their interaction.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Measures of direct responding and fitted parameters from the model of Mareschal et al. (2013b). (A) Estimates of the midpoints (peaks) between the categorical boundaries obtained by fitting individual data to the psychophysical model of Mareschal et al. (B) The centroid of the direct responses. (C) The distances between the modeled categorical boundaries (widths). (D) The modeled standard deviations of the sensory noise. (E) The proportion of “direct” responses. Each value was computed individually, and averaged across subjects. Error bars represented ±1 standard error of the mean across subjects.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4120707&req=5

fig8: Measures of direct responding and fitted parameters from the model of Mareschal et al. (2013b). (A) Estimates of the midpoints (peaks) between the categorical boundaries obtained by fitting individual data to the psychophysical model of Mareschal et al. (B) The centroid of the direct responses. (C) The distances between the modeled categorical boundaries (widths). (D) The modeled standard deviations of the sensory noise. (E) The proportion of “direct” responses. Each value was computed individually, and averaged across subjects. Error bars represented ±1 standard error of the mean across subjects.

Mentions: We fitted the model to individual subjects’ data and obtained for each an estimate of the peak direction of perceptually direct gaze (i.e., the midpoint between the fitted category boundaries for direct vs. averted gaze), an estimate of the width of the cone of direct gaze corresponding to the distance between the category boundaries (i.e., inverse specificity), and an estimate of the standard deviation of the noise affecting observers’ sensory representation of a gaze stimulus (i.e., inverse sensitivity). As an additional measure of subjectively direct gaze direction, we calculated the centroid of the “direct” gaze response as this would be less affected than the estimate of peak direction by the smaller number of trials performed in the current study compared with Mareschal et al. (2013b). Finally, we calculated the proportion of “direct” responses. The average of these estimates across subjects is shown in Figure 8. In the following analysis, we performed a repeated ANOVA with two conditions and five gaze deviations for each estimate.


Dual-route model of the effect of head orientation on perceived gaze direction.

Otsuka Y, Mareschal I, Calder AJ, Clifford CW - J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform (2014)

Measures of direct responding and fitted parameters from the model of Mareschal et al. (2013b). (A) Estimates of the midpoints (peaks) between the categorical boundaries obtained by fitting individual data to the psychophysical model of Mareschal et al. (B) The centroid of the direct responses. (C) The distances between the modeled categorical boundaries (widths). (D) The modeled standard deviations of the sensory noise. (E) The proportion of “direct” responses. Each value was computed individually, and averaged across subjects. Error bars represented ±1 standard error of the mean across subjects.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4120707&req=5

fig8: Measures of direct responding and fitted parameters from the model of Mareschal et al. (2013b). (A) Estimates of the midpoints (peaks) between the categorical boundaries obtained by fitting individual data to the psychophysical model of Mareschal et al. (B) The centroid of the direct responses. (C) The distances between the modeled categorical boundaries (widths). (D) The modeled standard deviations of the sensory noise. (E) The proportion of “direct” responses. Each value was computed individually, and averaged across subjects. Error bars represented ±1 standard error of the mean across subjects.
Mentions: We fitted the model to individual subjects’ data and obtained for each an estimate of the peak direction of perceptually direct gaze (i.e., the midpoint between the fitted category boundaries for direct vs. averted gaze), an estimate of the width of the cone of direct gaze corresponding to the distance between the category boundaries (i.e., inverse specificity), and an estimate of the standard deviation of the noise affecting observers’ sensory representation of a gaze stimulus (i.e., inverse sensitivity). As an additional measure of subjectively direct gaze direction, we calculated the centroid of the “direct” gaze response as this would be less affected than the estimate of peak direction by the smaller number of trials performed in the current study compared with Mareschal et al. (2013b). Finally, we calculated the proportion of “direct” responses. The average of these estimates across subjects is shown in Figure 8. In the following analysis, we performed a repeated ANOVA with two conditions and five gaze deviations for each estimate.

Bottom Line: We found that the perceived direction of gaze was generally biased in the opposite direction to head orientation (a repulsive effect).Based on these findings, we developed a dual-route model, which proposes that the 2 opposing effects of head orientation occur through 2 distinct routes.In the framework of this dual-route model, we explain and reconcile the findings from previous studies, and provide a functional account of attractive and repulsive effects and their interaction.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Psychology, The University of Sydney.

ABSTRACT
Previous studies on gaze perception have identified 2 opposing effects of head orientation on perceived gaze direction-1 repulsive and the other attractive. However, the relationship between these 2 effects has remained unclear. By using a gaze categorization task, the current study examined the effect of head orientation on the perceived direction of gaze in a whole-head condition and an eye-region condition. We found that the perceived direction of gaze was generally biased in the opposite direction to head orientation (a repulsive effect). Importantly, the magnitude of the repulsive effect was more pronounced in the eye-region condition than in the whole-head condition. Based on these findings, we developed a dual-route model, which proposes that the 2 opposing effects of head orientation occur through 2 distinct routes. In the framework of this dual-route model, we explain and reconcile the findings from previous studies, and provide a functional account of attractive and repulsive effects and their interaction.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus