Changing Faces: A Detection Advantage in the Flicker Paradigm

Ro, Tony; Russell, Charlotte; Lavie, Nilli

doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00317

Cited by 292 publications

(272 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

241

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…5.1 Detection rates and resistance of facial stimuli to IB Experiment 1 showed that faces are significantly better detected than pictures of common objects (58% versus 4% of detection) under condition of inattention, confirming, with more realistic stimuli, previous findings about the special attentional properties of faces (Mack and Rock 1998;Ro et al 2001;Theeuwes and Van der Stigchel 2006; but see Palermo and Rhodes 2003). In addition, the results of experiment 2 showed that upright faces are also better detected than inverted faces (50% versus 20% of detection), ruling out any alternative explanation in terms of potential low-level inherent differences between faces and objects.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Do Pictures of Faces, and Which Ones, Capture Attention in the Inattentional-Blindness Paradigm?

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Faces and self-referential material (eg one's own name) are more likely to capture attention in the inattentional-blindness (IB) paradigm than other stimuli. This effect is presumably due to the meaning of these stimuli rather than to their familiarity [Mack and Rock, 1998 Inattentional Blindness (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)]. In previous work, IB has been investigated mostly with schematic stimuli. In the present study, the generalisability of this finding was tested with photographic stimuli. In support of the view that faces constitute a special category of stimuli, pictures of faces were found to resist more to IB than pictures of common objects (experiment 1) or than pictures of inverted faces (experiment 2). In a third experiment, the influence of face familiarity and identity (the participant's own face, a friend's face, and an unknown face) on IB rates was evaluated. Unexpectedly, no differential resistence to blindness across these three kinds of faces was found. In conclusion, pictures of faces attracted attention more than pictures of objects or inverted faces in the IB paradigm. However, this effect was not dependent on face familiarity or identity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Do Pictures of Faces, and Which Ones, Capture Attention in the Inattentional-Blindness Paradigm?

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note that in the current study it is critical that we examined whether one's own face would be prioritized among other faces. Previous studies have already established that a face among non-face objects receive attentional priority (e.g., Ro, Russell, & Lavie, 2001;Theeuwes & Van der Stigchel, 2006). In the current study we asked the question whether the features that make up your own face would receive priority over faces which do not contain one's own facial features.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

You do not find your own face faster; you just look at it longer

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies investigating the ability of high priority stimuli to grab attention reached contradictory outcomes. The present study used eye tracking to examine the effect of the presence of the self-face among other faces in a visual search task in which the face identity was task-irrelevant. We assessed whether the self-face (1) received prioritized selection (2) caused a difficulty to disengage attention, and (3) whether its status as target or distractor had a differential effect. We included another highly familiar face to control whether possible effects were self-face specific or could be explained by high familiarity. We found that the self-face interfered with the search task. This was not due to a prioritized processing but rather to a difficulty to disengage attention. Crucially, this effect seemed due to the self-face's familiarity, as similar results were obtained with the other familiar face, and was modulated by the status of the face since it was stronger for targets than for distractors.

show abstract

“…Previous research indicates that people often fail to notice changes in objects that occupy their visual field-even seemingly obvious changes-unless they specifically allocate attention to that object (for a vivid example, see Simons & Levin, 1998.). Change-detection methods have been used successfully in past research documenting allocation of attention to functionally important social objects (Ro et al, 2001;Davies & Hoffman, 2002). In the present study, we employed a change-detection task designed to assess the extent to which participants selectively allocated attention to attractive (versus unattractive) opposite-sex and same-sex others -all of whom were present simultaneously in the perceptual environment.…”

Section: Change Detection As a Means Of Measuring Selective Allocatiomentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive allocation of attention: effects of sex and sociosexuality on visual attention to attractive opposite-sex faces

Duncan

Park

Faulkner

et al. 2007

Evolution and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We tested the hypothesis that, compared with sociosexually restricted individuals, those with an unrestricted approach to mating would selectively allocate visual attention to attractive opposite-sex others. We also tested for sex differences in this effect. Seventy-four participants completed the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory, and performed a computer-based task that assessed the speed with which they detected changes in attractive and unattractive male and female faces. Differences in reaction times served as indicators of selective attention. Results revealed a Sex X Sociosexuality interaction: Compared with sociosexually restricted men, unrestricted men selectively allocated attention to attractive opposite-sex others; no such effect emerged among women. This finding was specific to opposite-sex targets and did not occur in attention to same-sex others. These results contribute to a growing literature on the adaptive allocation of attention in social environments.

show abstract

Changing Faces: A Detection Advantage in the Flicker Paradigm

Cited by 292 publications

References 21 publications

Do Pictures of Faces, and Which Ones, Capture Attention in the Inattentional-Blindness Paradigm?

Do Pictures of Faces, and Which Ones, Capture Attention in the Inattentional-Blindness Paradigm?

You do not find your own face faster; you just look at it longer

Adaptive allocation of attention: effects of sex and sociosexuality on visual attention to attractive opposite-sex faces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About