Social inhibition of return

Skarratt, Paul A.; Cole, Geoff G.; Kingstone, Alan

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.12.003

Cited by 37 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In support of this view, Atkinson, Simpson, Skarratt, and Cole (2014) found that centrally viewed pointing responses generated social IOR when peripheral events were obscured. This supports a similar finding by Skarratt et al (2010), who observed the effect following only centrally presented eye/ head cues. Atkinson et al (2014) demonstrated that even when participants observed a different action to that which they performed, social IOR was present.…”

Section: Corepresentation and Attention During Joint Actionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Indeed, according to the above findings, sharing a task with a coactor, the social relationship between the observer and coactor and beliefs regarding the animacy and intentionality of observed action may all affect processes by which observed action orients attention. All or any one of these factors may account for the findings of Skarratt et al (2010), who found an animated partner did not elicit social IOR. Interactive factors may also influence attentional effects, such as predictive gaze and grasp cueing.…”

Section: Attending To Action In Interactive Contextsmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Testing a TD sample of adults, a further dissociation was revealed by Skarratt, Cole, and Kingstone (2010). They also restricted the visual access to coactor's responses in peripheral vision using a set of physical barriers, such that again there was only a central window of visibility.…”

Section: Social Inhibition Of Returnmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That social IOR should result from the corepresentation of another's actions may shed light on why the inhibition is observed under the restricted visual conditions employed by Welsh et al (2007;Welsh, Ray, et al, 2009) and Skarratt et al (2010), even when this is inconsistent with stimuli that are typically thought to cause this effect. The role of corepresentation and the MNS in social IOR has received additional support from two sources.…”

Section: Action Corepresentation and Attention In Social Iormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whilst Skarratt et al (2010) probed this issue by comparing performance of participants when they undertook the task with a live coactor verses an animated one, little other work has addressed how characteristics of joint tasks influence attention to another's action. Nonetheless, other work in the joint action and social attention literature indicates that live interactive contexts may be essential for a full understanding of how social cues are processed during visual cognition.…”

Section: Attending To Action In Interactive Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Visual attention and action: How cueing, direct mapping, and social interactions drive orienting

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite considerable interest in both action perception and social attention over the last 2 decades, there has been surprisingly little investigation concerning how the manual actions of other humans orient visual attention. The present review draws together studies that have measured the orienting of attention, following observation of another's goal-directed action. Our review proposes that, in line with the literature on eye gaze, action is a particularly strong orienting cue for the visual system. However, we additionally suggest that action may orient visual attention using mechanisms, which gaze direction does not (i.e., neural direct mapping and corepresentation). Finally, we review the implications of these gaze-independent mechanisms for the study of attention to action. We suggest that our understanding of attention to action may benefit from being studied in the context of joint action paradigms, where the role of higher level action goals and social factors can be investigated.

show abstract

Section: Corepresentation and Attention During Joint Actionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Attending To Action In Interactive Contextsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Social Inhibition Of Returnmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Action Corepresentation and Attention In Social Iormentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Attending To Action In Interactive Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Visual attention and action: How cueing, direct mapping, and social interactions drive orienting

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Am I Better in VR with a Real Audience?

Terrier

Martin

Lacoche

et al. 2019

Advances in Computer Graphics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present an experimental study using virtual reality (VR) to investigate the effects of a real audience on social inhibition. The study compares a multiuser application, locally or remotely shared. The application engages one user and a real audience (i.e., local or remote conditions) and a control condition where the user is alone (i.e., alone condition). The differences have been explored by analyzing the objective performance (i.e., type and answering time) of users when performing a categorization of numbers task in VR. Moreover, the subjective feelings and perceptions (i.e., perceptions of others, stress, cognitive workload, presence) of each user have been compared in relation to the location of the real audience. The results showed that in the presence of a real audience (in the local and remote conditions), user performance is affected by social inhibitions. Furthermore, users are even more influenced when the audience does not share the same room, despite others are less perceived.

show abstract