Orienting to threat: faster localization of fearful facial expressions and body postures revealed by saccadic eye movements

Abstract

Most studies investigating speeded orientation towards threat have used manual responses. By measuring orienting behaviour using eye movements a more direct and ecologically valid measure of attention can be made. Here, we used a forced-choice saccadic and manual localization task to investigate the speed of discrimination for fearful and neutral body and face images. Fearful/neutral body or face pairs were bilaterally presented for either 20 or 500 ms. Results showed faster saccadic orienting to fearful body and face emotions compared with neutral only at the shortest presentation time (20 ms). For manual responses, faster discrimination of fearful bodies and faces was observed only at the longest duration (500 ms). More errors were made when localizing neutral targets, suggesting that fearful bodies and faces may have captured attention automatically. Results were not attributable to low-level image properties as no threat bias, in terms of reaction time or accuracy, was observed for inverted presentation. Taken together, the results suggest faster localization of threat conveyed both by the face and the body within the oculomotor system. In addition, enhanced detection of fearful body postures suggests that we can readily recognize threat-related information conveyed by body postures in the absence of any face cues.

Attentional processing of other’s facial display of pain: An eye tracking study

“…Specifically, contrasts revealed that high expressive pain faces were rated significantly higher (M = 7.43; SD = .97) than moderate expressive pain faces (M = 5.55, SD = 1.30; F(1,34) = 631.76, p < .0001). Moderate expressive pain faces, in turn, were rated significantly higher than low expressive pain faces (M = 3.81, SD = 1.22; F(1,34) = 608.96, p < .0001) and low expressive pain faces were also rated significantly higher than neutral faces (M = .89, SD = .95; F (1,34) =426.06, p < .0001). Adding pain catastrophizing and pain intensity as covariates to the repeated measures ANOVA revealed no significant main effects or interactions (all F ≤ |1.52|, ns) indicating that ratings of faces" pain intensity were not affected by observer"s own pain catastrophizing and experienced personal pain intensity.…”

Distracted by danger: Temporal and spatial dynamics of visual selection in the presence of threat

“…A number of previous studies on emotional modulation of eye-movement behavior found evidence for faster detection of emotional stimuli (e.g., Bannerman, Milders, de Gelder, & Sahraie, 2009;Bannerman, Milders, & Sahraiem, 2009;Kissler & Keil, 2008;LoBue, Matthews, Harvey, & Stark, 2014). For example, Bannerman, Milders, de Gelder, & showed a decrease in saccade latency when a saccade is directed to the location of a threatening stimulus relative to a nonthreatening stimulus.…”

“…For example, Bannerman, Milders, de Gelder, & showed a decrease in saccade latency when a saccade is directed to the location of a threatening stimulus relative to a nonthreatening stimulus. Other studies found evidence for longer fixation durations on emotional relative to neutral stimuli in free-viewing paradigms (e.g., Calvo & Lang, 2004;Humphrey, Underwood, & Lambert, 2012;Lang, Greenwald, Bradley, & Hamm, 1993), suggesting delayed disengagement from an emotional stimulus (Fox, Russo, Bowles, & Dutton, 2001;Fox, Russo, & Dutton, 2002).…”

“…However, similar to the covert attention studies discussed before, most eye movement studies presented emotional stimuli that were always to some extent task relevant. For example, observers were instructed to saccade toward or away from the emotional stimulus (e.g., Bannerman, Milders, de Gelder, & Sahraie, 2009;Kissler & Keil, 2008;Nummenmaa, Hyönä, & Calvo, 2006) or to assess the valence, category or memory of presented pictures (Calvo & Lang, 2004;Humphrey et al, 2012;Lang et al, 1993;LoBue et al, 2014). Therefore, observers had to process and attend to the emotional stimulus in order to perform the task.…”

“…Eye movements are a direct and very sensitive measure of visual selection, as they can occur as early as 150 ms after stimulus onset, while manual responses typically vary between 300 and 2000 ms. Therefore, eye movements can reveal emotional modulation of visual selection not visible in manual behavior, such as manual reaction time or accuracy (e.g., Bannerman, Milders, de Gelder, & Sahraie, 2009;, 2010a.…”