Explicit vs. implicit spatial processing in arrow vs. eye‑gaze spatial congruency effects
Metadata
Show full item recordAuthor
Narganes Pineda, Cristina; Chica Martínez, Ana Belén; Lupiáñez Castillo, Juan; Marotta, AndreaEditorial
SpringerLink
Materia
Arrows Gaze Implicit processing Attentional orienting Social attention
Date
2022-02-22Referencia bibliográfica
Narganes Pineda, C. et. al. Psychological Research 87, 242–259 (2023). [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01659-x]
Sponsorship
Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness, research projects PSI2017-88136-P to ABC and PSI2017-84926-P and PID2020-114790GB-I00; Andalusian Council and European Regional Development Fund, through research project B-SEJ-572-UGR20; FPU predoctoral fellowship from the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (FPU16/05056)Abstract
Arrows and gaze stimuli lead to opposite spatial congruency effects. While standard congruency effects are observed for
arrows (faster responses for congruent conditions), responses are faster when eye-gaze stimuli are presented on the opposite
side of the gazed-at location (incongruent trials), leading to a reversed congruency effect (RCE). Here, we explored the
effects of implicit vs. explicit processing of arrows and eye-gaze direction. Participants were required to identify the direction
(explicit task) or the colour (implicit task) of left or right looking/pointing gaze or arrows, presented to either the left or right
of the fixation point. When participants responded to the direction of stimuli, standard congruency effects for arrows and RCE
for eye-gaze stimuli were observed. However, when participants responded to the colour of stimuli, no congruency effects
were observed. These results suggest that it is necessary to explicitly pay attention to the direction of eye-gaze and arrows
for the congruency effect to occur. The same pattern of data was observed when participants responded either manually or
verbally, demonstrating that manual motor components are not responsible for the results observed. These findings are not
consistent with some hypotheses previously proposed to explain the RCE observed with eye-gaze stimuli and, therefore, call
for an alternative plausible hypothesis.