The Role of Emotional Expression and Eccentricity on Gaze Perception

Abstract

The perception of another’s gaze direction and facial expression complements verbal communication and modulates how we interact with other people. However, our perception of these two cues is not always accurate, even when we are looking directly at the person. In addition, in many cases social communication occurs within groups of people where we can’t always look directly at every person in the group. Here, we sought to examine how the presence of other people influences our perception of a target face. We asked participants to judge the direction of gaze of the target face as either looking to their left, to their right or directly at them, when the face was viewed on its own or viewed within a group of other identity faces. The target face either had an angry or a neutral expression and was viewed directly (foveal experiment), or within peripheral vision (peripheral experiment). When the target was viewed within a group, the flanking faces also had either neutral or angry expressions and their gaze was in one of five different directions (from averted leftwards to averted rightwards in steps of 10°). When the target face was viewed foveally there was no effect of target emotion on participants’ judgments of its gaze direction. There was also no effect of the presence of flankers (regardless of expression) on the perception of the target gaze. When the target face was viewed peripherally, participants judged its direction of gaze to be direct over a wider range of gaze deviations than when viewed foveally, and more so for angry faces than neutral faces. We also find that flankers (regardless of emotional expression) did not influence performance. This suggests that observers judge that angry faces were looking at them over a broad range of gaze deviations in the periphery only, possibly resulting from increased uncertainty about the stimulus.

Masked face is looking at me: Face mask increases the feeling of being looked at during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…An a priori power analysis (G*Power 3; Faul et al, 2007 ) with a medium effect size of 0.25, a 1-β power of 0.80, and an alpha of 0.05 found that the required number of participants in the study should be 28. In addition, the sample size in similar studies has been restricted to 20–40 participants ( Ewbank et al, 2009 ; Pantelis and Kennedy, 2016 ; Lyyra et al, 2017 ; Awad et al, 2019 ). Thus, we expected to test 30 participants.…”

Quantified Facial Temporal-Expressiveness Dynamics for Affect Analysis

“…Attentiveness (gaze) is also a crucial part of affect analysis, especially for people with communication disabilities [10]. Recent works showed a strong link between emotion recognition and eye gaze estimation [41], [42] which motivates us to use gaze to measure temporal expressiveness dynamics. Thus, we incorporate eye-gaze features in our algorithm by capturing gaze from the left eye and right eye.…”

Perceiving the outlier in the crowd: The influence of facial identity

“…It is unclear whether this theory applies to group emotion processing as well. However, researchers have confirmed the consistency of the impact of familiar faces on the accuracy of facial perception at both individual and group levels (Awad et al, 2023; Bortolon et al, 2018). Besides, the limited resource would lead to inaccurate representations of individual expressions or coding only a fraction of the group's faces.…”