Eye gaze is not special: The reversed spatial Stroop effect on gaze and tongue targets

Abstract

In the spatial Stroop task, an arrow target produces a spatial Stroop effect, whereas a gaze target elicits a reversed spatial Stroop effect. The reversed spatial Stroop effect has been explained by the unique attentional mechanisms of eye gaze. However, recent studies have shown that not only gaze but arrow targets produced a reversed spatial Stroop effect when embedded in a complex background. The present study investigated whether non-social targets produce a reversed spatial Stroop effect. We used the tongue, which generally does not convey social information, as a target in the spatial Stroop task, in addition to the conventional gaze and arrows. Participants judged the left/right direction of the target presented in the left or right visual field. While arrow and gaze targets replicated previous findings (spatial Stroop and reversed spatial Stroop effect, respectively), the tongue target produced a reversed spatial Stroop effect. These results are inconsistent with previous accounts emphasizing the unique status of eye gaze. We propose that temporal decay of the location code and response inhibition are responsible for the reversal of spatial interference.

Reversing the reversed congruency effect: directional salience overrides social significance in a spatial Stroop task

“…For instance, Román-Caballero et al (2021) added the complex mosaic pattern behind the arrow targets in the gaze spatial Stroop task to slow the target identification and found a reduction of the arrow's SSE. This temporal characteristic of the location-based conflicts would partially explain the results in the present study (see Tanaka et al, 2023a for theoretical details). When head stimuli were used as targets, their directional saliency accelerated the target identification.…”

“…In general, stimulus identification delays with the decrease of stimulus saliency. Such delayed target identification reduces spatial conflicts ( Chen et al, 2022 ; Román-Caballero et al, 2021 ; Tanaka et al, 2023a ). In the spatial Stroop task, location-based conflicts arise at stimulus onset and decay rapidly ( Hommel, 1993 ).…”

The computational substrates of holistic face processing in cognitive control

“…Beyond the spatial cuing paradigms, other tasks have been developed for exploring the distinctive nature of eye gaze. For example, several variants of the spatial Stroop task have shown clear dissociation between eye gaze and arrows when they are used as targets rather than cues (Cañadas & Lupiá ñez, 2012;Marotta, Lupiá ñez, Romá n-Caballero, Narganes-Pineda, & Martí n-Aré valo, 2019;Marotta, Romá n-Caballero, & Lupiá ñez, 2018;Tanaka, Ishikawa, Oyama, & Okubo, 2022a). In particular, eye gaze and arrows lead to opposite spatial interference effects in which left or right looking/pointing target randomly appeared to the left or right side of the fixation point and participants are required to identify the direction of both targets while ignoring their location.…”