Self make-up: the influence of self-referential processing on attention orienting.

Shuo Zhao,Sayaka Yoshimura,Motomi Toichi,Shota Uono

doi:10.1038/srep14169

Shuo Zhao, Sayaka Yoshimura + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14169

Copy DOI

Abstract

For humans, both eye gaze and arrows serve as powerful signals for orienting attention. Recent studies have shown important differences between gaze and arrows in attention orienting; however, the mechanisms underlying these differences are not known. One such mechanism may be self-referential processing. To investigate this possibility, we trained participants to associate two cues (a red and green arrow in Experiment 1A and two different faces in Experiment 1B) with distinct words (“self” and “other”). Then, we manipulated two types of sound (voice and tone) as targets to investigate whether the cueing effect to self- and other-referential cues differs in a manner similar to that reported for gaze and arrows. We found that self-, but not other-, referential cues induced an enhanced cueing effect to the voice target relative to the tone target regardless of the cue characteristic (i.e., biological or non-biological). Our results suggest that the difference between gaze and arrows in orienting attention can be explained, at least in part, by the self-referentiality of gaze. Furthermore, in Experiment 2, we found a reverse cueing pattern between gaze and arrow cues by manipulating subjects’ experiences, suggesting that differences in the self-referentiality of gaze and arrow cues are not inherent.

Highlights

Both eye gaze and arrows serve as powerful signals for orienting attention
We examined whether self- and other-referential cues would show a cueing pattern similar to that reported by Zhao et al (2014)[11] for gaze and arrow cues
The total error rates (TER) of two participants were greater than 10% in at least one block and were excluded from the analysis

Summary

Materials and methods

We trained participants to associate two arrows (one red and one green) with the words “self ” and “other”. We used these arrows in the cueing task. Participants were trained to develop an association between self- or other-referential information and the colour of the arrow (Fig. 1A) They were told which colour was associated with “self ” and “other”, and assignment of the red or green arrow to the word “self ” was counterbalanced across participants. The mean RT differences were analysed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with cue (self-referential and other-referential arrows) and target (voice, tone) as the within-participant factors

Results and Discussion

Materials and Methods