Reflexive Orienting in Response to Short- and Long-Duration Gaze Cues in Young, Young-Old, and Old-Old Adults
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Atten Percept Psychophys (2014) 76:407–419 DOI 10.3758/s13414-013-0554-6 Reflexive orienting in response to short- and long-duration gaze cues in young, young-old, and old-old adults Nora D. Gayzur & Linda K. Langley & Chris Kelland & Sara V. Wyman & Alyson L. Saville & Annie T. Ciernia & Ganesh Padmanabhan Published online: 30 October 2013 # Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2013 Abstract Shifting visual focus on the basis of the perceived disengage from persistent gaze cues, attention continues to be gaze direction of another person is one form of joint attention. In reflexively guided by gaze cues late in life. the present study, we investigated whether this socially relevant form of orienting is reflexive and whether it is influenced by age. Keywords Aging . Attention . Reflexive orienting . Green and Woldorff (Cognition 122:96–101, 2012) argued that Gaze cues . Cue duration . Time course . Old-old rapid cueing effects (i.e., faster responses to validly than to invalidly cued targets) were limited to conditions in which a cue overlapped in time with a target. They attributed slower Shifts in spatial attention are reflexive when they are elicited responses following invalid cues to the time needed to resolve rapidly by stimuli uninformative of an upcoming object’sloca- the incongruent spatial information provided by the concurrently tion. Originally thought to occur specifically in response to presented cue and target. In the present study, we examined the peripherally presented stimuli, reflexive orienting has also been orienting responses of young (18–31 years), young-old (60– demonstrated in response to centrally fixated directional stimuli 74 years), and old-old (75–91 years) adults following (e.g., arrow cues and gaze cues; Friesen & Kingstone, 1998; uninformative central gaze cues that overlapped in time with Ristic, Friesen, & Kingstone, 2002;Tipples,2002). The present the target (Exp. 1) or that were removed prior to target presenta- study examined the nature of spatial orienting triggered by gaze tion (Exp. 2). When the cue and target overlapped, all three cues. Evolutionary and social advantages are associated with groups localized validly cued targets more quickly than invalidly rapidly shifting attention in response to a person’s gaze; cued targets, and validity effects emerged earlier for the two responding to threats or resources in the environment identified younger groups (at 100 ms post-cue-onset) than for the old-old by a companion could lead to faster evasive or approach reac- group (at 300 ms post-cue-onset). With a short-duration cue tions. The gaze direction of another person is also an important (Exp. 2), validity effects developed rapidly (by 100 ms) for all nonverbal cue in social communication. In childhood, orienting three groups, suggesting that validity effects resulted from reflex- in response to gaze direction promotes the development of joint ive orienting based on the gaze cue information rather than from attention—that is, the ability to coordinate attention with another cue–target conflict. Thus, although old-old adults may be slow to observer, which facilitates learning, language development, and social competence (see the reviews by Frischen, Bayliss, & Tipper, 2007; Mundy & Newell, 2007). Surprisingly, although developmental patterns of gaze- based orienting and joint attention have been investigated N. D. Gayzur : L. K. Langley : C. Kelland : S. V. Wyman : A. L. Saville : A. T. Ciernia : G. Padmanabhan in infancy and childhood, the developmental changes later Department of Psychology and Center for Visual and Cognitive in life have only begun to be explored. Joint attention as Neuroscience, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA guided by gaze direction likely remains important for co- operative cognition among older adults. The purpose of the L. K. Langley Department of Psychology (2765), North Dakota State University, present study was twofold: to explore the reflexive P.O. Box 6050, Fargo, ND 58108-6050, USA orienting properties of gaze cues, and to assess adult age patterns in gaze-triggered orienting. In the following sec- * N. D. Gayzur ( ) tions, we review the current evidence regarding reflexive Department of Psychology (Box 85), University of Central Oklahoma, 100 N. University Drive, Edmond, OK 73034, USA orienting in response to central spatial cues and age-related e-mail: [email protected] modifications of these orienting patterns. 408 Atten Percept Psychophys (2014) 76:407–419 Reflexive orienting to central spatial cues not as strongly affected by top-down contingencies as arrow-initiated orienting (Ristic et al., 2007). Researchers have traditionally used two types of cues to Green and Woldorff (2012) observed that the majority of measure spatial orienting (Posner, 1980; Posner & Cohen, studies that reported reflexive orienting triggered by central 1984): peripheral cues, which are presented outside the cur- directional cues used a stimulus sequence with cue–target rent attentional focus and are uninformative of the target temporal overlap (e.g., Friesen & Kingstone, 1998; location, and central arrow cues, which are presented at visual Quadflieg, Mason, & Macrae, 2004;Risticetal.,2002;but fixation and provide informative directional information (e.g., cf. Friesen & Kingstone, 2003;Risticetal.,2007; Tipples, they point toward the target location on a high percentage of 2002). They argued that the persistent cue may have induced trials; Posner & Cohen, 1984). Unique temporal orienting stimulus conflict between the cue and target on invalidly cued patterns are associated with uninformative peripheral cues trials, and that this conflict slowed target processing. To test and informative arrow cues (for a review, see Klein, this non-attentional explanation for validity effects, the re- Kingstone, & Pontefract, 1992). When presented peripherally, searchers compared the effects of directionally predictive valid cues (cues that indicate the location of the upcoming (80 % valid) arrows that remained visible upon target presen- target) lead to faster responses to targets than do invalid cues, tation (long-duration cues) with the effects of directionally and this validity effect develops rapidly (as early as 50– predictive arrows that were presented briefly (50 ms) and were 100 ms postcue) and then diminishes (and later reverses). removed prior to target presentation (short-duration cues). Cueing effects for informative arrow cues (i.e., valid response With short-duration cues, validity effects were not observed times [RTs] < invalid RTs) develop more slowly and are at short cue–target SOAs (0 or 100 ms) but were found at maintained at longer time intervals. The different cueing pat- SOAs equal to or longer than 300 ms, consistent with voli- terns have been interpreted as reflecting reflexive and voli- tional orienting in response to a predictive cue. With long- tional orienting (Jonides, 1981). Attention is reflexively drawn duration cues, validity effects were observed at 0 and 100 ms, to the location of peripheral cues, leading to rapid but short- not at 200 ms, and again at 300 ms and longer. This biphasic lived facilitation effects. In the case of informative arrow cues, pattern suggested that orienting was volitional at longer attention is voluntarily (and thus, less quickly) directed to (and SOAs, but the effects at the short SOAs were unlikely to be maintained at) locations indicated by the central symbolic attentional, particularly given validity effects with simulta- cues due to the predictive nature of the cues. neous cue–target presentation (0-ms SOA). A second experi- Although it was long assumed that central arrow cues ment, which added neutral cues (double arrows), demonstrat- directed attention on the basis of their predictive properties, ed that the validity effects associated with long-duration cues recent research has revealed that uninformative arrows also consisted of costs only (slower responses to an invalidly cued bias spatial attention (Hommel, Pratt, Colzato, & Godijn, target than to a neutrally cued target) at early cue–target 2001; Kingstone, Smilek, Ristic, Friesen, & Eastwood, intervals and both benefits (faster responses to a validly cued 2003;Risticetal.,2002; Tipples, 2002). Even when the target target than to a neutrally cued target) and costs at later inter- was as likely to be presented at the uncued location as at the vals. Thus, the pattern overall was consistent with interference cued location (50 % predictive), validity effects have been between a cue and target when the two stimuli were presented observed at short (100–300 ms) cue–target stimulus onset concurrently and contained conflicting spatial information asynchronies (SOAs), consistent with reflexive orienting. (oninvalidtrials),andthisconflictledtoslowedresponses Following a hallmark study by Friesen and Kingstone that mimicked reflexive orienting patterns. The lack of (1998), multiple studies have demonstrated reflexive orienting validity effects at short SOAs when the temporal overlap patterns for gaze cues (e.g., Driver et al., 1999;Friesen, was removed suggested that reflexive orienting did not Moore, & Kingstone, 2005; Kingstone, Tipper, Ristic, & contribute to the observed cueing patterns. More recently, Ngan, 2004; Ristic, Wright, & Kingstone, 2007). For exam- Green, Gamble, and Woldorff (2013) provided additional ple, Ristic and colleagues (2002) presented participants with a evidence for a spatial-incongruency explanation, this time schematic face or an arrow that looked/pointed