Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Görner, M.

Publications and source records attributed to Görner, M..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Rhesus monkeys use both eye and head gaze to reallocate covert spatial attention facilitating visual perception

Non-verbal cues, particularly eye gaze, significantly shape human social interactions. Although non-human primates reliably follow head gaze, their capacity to use eye gaze alone for inferring the others focus of attention remains debated. We investigated this question using a realistic rhesus monkey head avatar that directed its gaze toward one of two LEDs (left or right), employing either eye movements alone or combined eye and head movements. After a randomly chosen interval (ranging 50-400 ms) from gaze presentation, one LED transiently increased its luminance to near-threshold levels. Rhesus monkeys were trained to detect and report this luminance change via a saccade to the corresponding LED, independent of the avatars gaze direction, to receive rewards. Our results showed that head-gaze cues robustly directed covert attention toward gaze-congruent targets with short delays, indicative of reflex-like, stimulus-driven orienting. In contrast, eye gaze alone, at comparable amplitudes, did not affect attention shifts. However, increasing the avatars size and eye-gaze amplitude, simulating a close-range interaction, made eye gaze cues effective in guiding attention. These findings demonstrate that rhesus monkeys possess the capacity to use eye-gaze cues to determine conspecifics attentional targets, and validate and underscore the utility of 3D animal models as powerful tools for generating realistic yet precisely controlled stimuli. Our study supports the idea that eye-gaze following is not uniquely human but is an evolutionarily ancient ability, likely shared across Old World monkeys and apes which diverged more than 30 million years ago.

animal behavior and cognition↗

Implied motion guides neither gaze following nor intention attribution

The "gaze beam hypothesis (GBH)" of gaze following posits that the others eyes emit imaginary beams of moving energy travelling to the others object of attention (1), drawing the observers attention to the same object. This idea was initially supported by behavioral experiments showing a motion aftereffect (MAE), indicated by longer reaction times in detecting motion direction after viewing a cartoon face looking at an object in the same direction (2). However, this effect could also be expected if the observer used gaze direction to assume an intentional link between the looker and the object, envisioning directed actions toward the latter (3). To critically compare the two hypotheses, we tested whether an MAE could be induced by having human subjects detect motion direction after viewing various cue images, designed to differentiate the explanatory power of the two. Cues either suggested a connection between an agent and an object through the agents gaze or an object-oriented intention by the presence of equipment in the agents hand, without the agent directly looking at the object. Using Bayesian statistics, our findings provided strong evidence against both hypotheses at the population level, as reaction time modulations did not align with the MAE, leading us to reject motion adaptation as the underlying mechanism for gaze following but also intention attribution. As on an individual level we observed highly diverse effects, with some compatible with one or the other hypothesis, we assume that individual subjects may resort to different perceptual strategies based on different scene interpretations.

neuroscience↗

A fronto-temporo-parietal network disambiguates potential objects of joint attention

We use the others gaze direction to identify her/his object of interest and to shift our attention to the same object, i.e. to establish joint attention. However, gaze direction may not be sufficient to unambiguously identify the object of interest as the others gaze may hit more than one object. In this case, the observer must use a priori information to disambiguate the object choice. Using fMRI, we suggest that the disambiguation is based on a 3-component network. A first component, the well-known gaze following patch in the posterior STS is activated by gaze following per se. BOLD activity here is determined exclusively by the usage of gaze direction and is independent of the need to disambiguate the relevant object. On the other hand, BOLD activity revealing a priori information for the disambiguation and starting early enough to this end is confined to a patch of cortex at the inferior frontal junction. Finally, BOLD activity reflecting the convergence of both, a priori information and gaze direction, needed to shift attention to a particular object location is confined to the posterior parietal cortex.

neuroscience↗