1. The role of visuo-spatial working memory in attention to eye gaze Anna S. Law, Liverpool John Moores University Stephen R. H. Langton, University of Stirling Robert H. Logie, University of Edinburgh Introduction Method Secondary Task: Auditory Matrix (Logie, Zucco & Baddeley, 1990) Primary Task: Visual Gaze-cueing Participants localised target with “left” and “right” button press responses Mean reaction time for cued and un-cued targets under single and dual task conditions Discussion Under dual-task conditions, performance of a standard gaze-cueing task was slowed (relative to single-task performance). However, there was no interaction with gaze cue validity – i.e., the reaction time advantage for validly-cued targets was maintained across both single and dual task conditions. This result suggests that gaze-cueing may be resistant to disruption by concurrent tasks requiring the manipulation and maintenance of information in visuo-spatial working memory. Visual WM load has also been found to be ineffective in modulating attentional orienting to non-predictive peripheral cues (Santangelo, 2008). Gaze-cueing was initially thought to be highly reflexive (e.g., Langton & Bruce, 1999), and our result is more in line with this notion than with recent accounts of gaze-cueing as a voluntary process (e.g., Vecera & Rizzo, 2006). References Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1976). Pictures of facial affect. Palo Alto CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Langton, S. R. H., & Bruce, V. (1999). Reflexive visual orienting in response to the social attention of others. Visual Cognition, 6, 541-567. Logie, R. H., Zucco, G. M., & Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Interference with visual short-term memory. Acta Psychologica, 75, 55-74. Santangelo, V., Finoia, P., Raffone, A., Belardinelli, M. O., Spence, C. (2008). Perceptual load affects exogenous spatial orienting while working memory load does not. Experimental Brain Research, 184, 371-382. Vecera, S. P., & Rizzo, M. (2006). Eye gaze does not produce reflexive shifts of attention: Evidence from frontal-lobe damage. Neuropsychologia, 44, 150-159. Results Therefore, the present investigation employed dual-task methodology to attempt to disrupt gaze-cueing. It combined a standard gaze-cueing task with an auditory secondary task that required the manipulation and maintenance of information in visuo-spatial working memory (VSWM). There were 2 possible predictions: 1) Attentional control processes are normally involved by suppressing (to some extent) the inherently distracting influence of gaze. Therefore, dual- task load will lead to an increase in gaze-cueing. 2) Attentional control processes are normally involved in creating an attentional set that results in gaze cueing. Therefore, dual-task load will lead to a decrease in gaze-cueing. The gaze of other people can evoke shifts in the spatial attention of the observer. This “gaze-cueing” effect was initially thought to be highly automatic or “reflexive” (e.g., Langton & Bruce, 1999). However, recent studies have raised the possibility that some form of voluntary attentional control may be responsible (e.g., Vecera & Rizzo, 2006). Faster response if target stimulus appears here Slower response if target stimulus appears here Participants (N = 37, Age: M = 19, SD = 4) performed short blocks of 8 gaze-cueing trials, under either single task conditions, or dual-task conditions where they performed the auditory VSWM task at the same time. “Filled, filled, filled, Unfilled, unfilled, filled Filled, filled, filled, Unfilled, unfilled, filled, Filled, filled, filled” During dual task blocks, participants listened to an auditory description of a 3x5 matrix pattern, while forming a mental image of the matrix that had to be maintained in VSWM. At the end of the block they responded verbally by indicating which digit the pattern represented. If VSWM load modulated gaze-cueing, we would expect to see an interaction between dual-task demand and gaze cue validity. Analyses were conducted on trials where the response was correct for both the primary and secondary tasks. A 2 x 2 repeated measures ANOVA demonstrated: A significant main effect of demand (single vs. dual task), F(1, 36) = 46.27, p < 0.001 A significant main effect of gaze cue validity, F(1, 36) = 128.35, p < 0.001 But no interaction between these 2 factors, F < 1 Method cont. “Filled, filled, filled Filled, unfilled, unfilled Filled, filled, filled Unfilled, unfilled, filled, Filled, filled, filled” Four different faces with neutral expression (Ekman & Friesen, 1976) were used to cue the target (300ms SOA) Example 1: Auditory description of “Three” Example 2: Auditory description of “Five” Contact: a.law@ljmu.ac.uk Acknowledgements: This work was supported by a Research Fellowship awarded to the first author by the Economic and Social Research Council.