Mental states modulate gaze following, but not automatically

Abstract

A number of authors have suggested that the computation of another person's visual perspective occurs automatically. In the current work we examined whether perspective-taking is indeed automatic or more likely to be due to mechanisms associated with conscious control. Participants viewed everyday scenes in which a single human model looked towards a target object. Importantly, the model's view of the object was either visible or occluded by a physical barrier (e.g., briefcase). Results showed that when observers were given five seconds to freely view the scenes, eye movements were faster to fixate the object when the model could see it compared to when it was occluded. By contrast, when observers were required to rapidly discriminate a target superimposed upon the same object no such visibility effect occurred. We also employed the barrier procedure together with the most recent method (i.e., the ambiguous number paradigm) to have been employed in assessing the perspective-taking theory. Results showed that the model's gaze facilitated responses even when this agent could not see the critical stimuli. We argue that although humans do take into account the perspective of other people this does not occur automatically.

The closing of the theory of mind: A critique of perspective-taking

“…Wilson, Soranzo, and Bertamini (2017) also adopted this "seeing/nonseeing" manipulation and similarly found perspective-taking-like data (i.e., a consistency effect) when the agent was blindfolded and when the agent was replaced by a camera. This has also been the case when visibility was manipulated in the ambiguous number paradigm (Kuhn et al, 2018). However, one has to note that Baker, Levin, and Saylor (2016), and Morgan, Freeth, and Smith (2018) have reported the absence of a perspective-taking effect when the barrier method was employed, thus supporting the perspective-taking theory.…”

“…At least with imagery, there is a real sense of a visual perception, of "seeing" something that is not present. In contrast, when we perspective-take our visual experience does not change, and we predominantly saccade towards the objects that an agent is looking towards (Kuhn et al, 2018).…”

Perspective-Taking: In Search of a Theory

“…A number of related procedures have now been developed all intended to examine perspective-taking. For example, in the ambiguous number paradigm [ 15 , 16 ], a single digit located in a scene may appear different for the participant and agent. Thus, the number “6” placed flat on a table would be seen as “9” when viewed by an agent sitting opposite.…”

“…Our representation of what she is looking at, her visual perspective, cannot therefore include the number. Despite this, the agent/image still induces an interference effect when a participant is required to rapidly discriminate an ambiguous number such as 68 (seen as 89 from the agent’s position) compared with an unambiguous number such as 69 [ 16 ]; what some authors would call a “perspective-taking” effect. Indeed, Zhao, et al [ 17 ] stated that participants had been “perspective-taking” in a variant of this paradigm in which observers made a non-speeded response to the question “what number is on the table?” As with the Kuhn et al [ 16 ] experiment, this occurred in a condition where the agent was not looking at the digit.…”

“…For example, Wiese, Wykowska, Zwickel, and Muller [ 48 ] found that when observers believed an agent has intention, larger attention shifts occurred compared to when observers did not have this belief (see also, [ 49 , 50 ]). It is also the case, however, that a face exhibiting fear does not reliably induce greater cueing effects relative to a neutral face [ 16 , 51 , 52 ]. Furthermore, arrows seem to orient attention as well, if not better, than gaze [ 53 , 54 , 55 ].…”