Perceived Gaze Direction Modulates Neural Processing of Prosocial Decision Making

Abstract

Gaze direction is a common social cue implying potential interpersonal interaction. However, little is known about the neural processing of social decision making influenced by perceived gaze direction. Here, we employed functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) method to investigate 27 females when they were engaging in an economic exchange game task during which photos of direct or averted eye gaze were shown. We found that, when averted but not direct gaze was presented, prosocial vs. selfish choices were associated with stronger activations in the right superior temporal gyrus (STG) as well as larger functional couplings between right STG and the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC). Moreover, stronger activations in right STG was associated with quicker actions for making prosocial choice accompanied with averted gaze. The findings suggest that, when the cue implying social contact is absent, the processing of understanding others’ intention and the relationship between self and others is more involved for making prosocial than selfish decisions. These findings could advance our understanding of the roles of subtle cues in influencing prosocial decision making, as well as shedding lights on deficient social cue processing and functioning among individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

Following the Majority: Social Influence in Trusting Behavior

“…As the decision to trust is concerned with perspective-taking, it should activate brain regions involved in theory-of-mind tasks (Fehr and Camerer, 2007). Moreover, researchers found the STG was involved in the processing of gaze direction in a modified trust game (Sun et al, 2018). A previous study that focused on the neurobiological correlates of conformity during mental rotation task has reported that the presence of external information was associated with decreased activation in the mental rotation neural network (Berns et al, 2005).…”

I lie, why don't you: Neural mechanisms of individual differences in self‐serving lying

“…The interaction might influence the participants' decisions and the underlying neural processes. For example, in the context where participants could interact with others (Sun, Lee, Wang, & Chan, ; Sun, Shao, Wang, & Lee, ), fewer dishonest choices were made when participants interacted with human than computer investors and distinct neural processing during lying were involved when the decision maker considers the interests of the recipient (Sun et al, ). Therefore, the lack of interaction in our current design should be considered as a limitation and the effect of interaction on deception decision‐making should be investigated in future studies.…”

Use of information modelling techniques to understand research trends in eye gaze estimation methods: An automated review

“… Social Analysis: Eye gaze helps in understanding the ability of an individual in paying attention to any useful information [151]. Gaze direction along with magnetic resonance imaging technique helps in developing potential interpersonal interaction [152, 153]. Sports: Eye movements helps athletes in anticipating where exactly the ball will bounce [154].…”