Many eye tracking studies use facial stimuli presented on a display to investigate attentional processing of social stimuli. To introduce a more realistic approach that allows interaction between two real people, we evaluated a new eye tracking setup in three independent studies in terms of data quality, short-term reliability and feasibility. Study 1 measured the robustness, precision and accuracy for calibration stimuli compared to a classical display-based setup. Study 2 used the identical measures with an independent study sample to compare the data quality for a photograph of a face (2D) and the face of the real person (3D). Study 3 evaluated data quality over the course of a real face-to-face conversation and examined the gaze behavior on the facial features of the conversation partner. Study 1 provides evidence that quality indices for the scene-based setup were comparable to those of a classical display-based setup. Average accuracy was better than 0.4° visual angle. Study 2 demonstrates that eye tracking quality is sufficient for 3D stimuli and robust against short interruptions without re-calibration. Study 3 confirms the long-term stability of tracking accuracy during a face-to-face interaction and demonstrates typical gaze patterns for facial features. Thus, the eye tracking setup presented here seems feasible for studying gaze behavior in dyadic face-to-face interactions. Eye tracking data obtained with this setup achieves an accuracy that is sufficient for investigating behavior such as eye contact in social interactions in a range of populations including clinical conditions, such as autism spectrum and social phobia.

Eye contact is an indispensable social signal, yet for some individuals it is also a source of discomfort they fear and avoid. However, it is still unknown whether gaze anxiety actually produces avoidant gaze behavior in naturalistic, face-to-face interactions. Here, we relied on a novel dual eye-tracking setup that allows us to assess interactive gaze behavior. To investigate the effect of gaze anxiety on gaze behavior, we a priori created groups of participants reporting high or low levels of gaze anxiety. These participants (n = 51) then performed a semi-standardized interaction with a previously unknown individual reporting a medium level of gaze anxiety. The gaze behavior of both groups did not differ in either classical one-way, eye-tracking parameters (e.g. unilateral eye gaze), or interactive, two-way ones (e.g. mutual gaze). Furthermore, the subjective ratings of both participants’ interaction did not differ between groups. Gaze anxious individuals seem to exhibit normal gaze behavior which does not hamper the perceived quality of interactions in a naturalistic face-to-face setup. Our findings point to the existence of cognitive distortions in gaze anxious individuals whose exterior behavior might be less affected than feared by their interior anxiety.

No abstract

Advances in eye tracking technology have enabled the development of interactive experimental setups to study social attention. Since these setups differ substantially from the eye tracker manufacturer’s test conditions, validation is essential with regard to the quality of gaze data and other factors potentially threatening the validity of this signal. In this study, we evaluated the impact of accuracy and areas of interest (AOIs) size on the classification of simulated gaze (fixation) data. We defined AOIs of different sizes using the Limited-Radius Voronoi-Tessellation (LRVT) method, and simulated gaze data for facial target points with varying accuracy. As hypothesized, we found that accuracy and AOI size had strong effects on gaze classification. In addition, these effects were not independent and differed in falsely classified gaze inside AOIs (Type I errors; false alarms) and falsely classified gaze outside the predefined AOIs (Type II errors; misses). Our results indicate that smaller AOIs generally minimize false classifications as long as accuracy is good enough. For studies with lower accuracy, Type II errors can still be compensated to some extent by using larger AOIs, but at the cost of more probable Type I errors. Proper estimation of accuracy is therefore essential for making informed decisions regarding the size of AOIs in eye tracking research.

IntroductionThe aim of the present study was (1) to validate the method of guilt-induction by means of a written auto-biographical essay and (2) to test whether experimental pain is apt to alleviate the mental burden of guilt, a concept receiving support from both empirical research and clinical observation.MethodsThree independent groups of healthy male participants were recruited. Group allocation was not randomized but within group pain/sham administration was counterbalanced over the two test-days. Groups were tested in the following consecutive order: Group A: guilt induction, heat-pain/sham, N = 59; Group B: guilt induction, cold-pressure-pain/sham, N = 43; Group C: emotionally neutral induction, heat-pain/sham, N = 39. Guilt was induced on both test-days in group A and B before pain/sham administration. Visual analog scale (VAS) guilt ratings immediately after pain/sham stimulation served as the primary outcome. In a control group C the identical heat-pain experiment was performed like in group A but a neutral emotional state was induced.ResultsA consistently strong overall effect of guilt-induction (heat-pain: p < 0.001, effect size r = 0.71; CPT-pain p < 0.001, r = 0.67) was found when compared to the control-condition (p = 0.25, r = 0.08). As expected, heat- and cold-pressure-stimuli were highly painful in all groups (p < 0.0001, r = 0.89). However, previous research supporting the hypothesis that pain is apt to reduce guilt was not replicated.ConclusionAlthough guilt-induction was highly effective on both test-days no impact of pain on behavioral guilt-ratings in healthy individuals could be identified. Guilt induction per se did not depend on the order of testing. The result questions previous experimental work on the impact of pain on moral emotions.