Stronger reactivity to social gaze in virtual reality compared to a classical laboratory environment.
reactive virtual agents
social attention
social gaze
virtual reality
Journal
British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953)
ISSN: 2044-8295
Titre abrégé: Br J Psychol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0373124
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
04
04
2019
revised:
05
05
2020
pubmed:
3
6
2020
medline:
28
4
2021
entrez:
3
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
People show a robust tendency to gaze at other human beings when viewing images or videos, but were also found to relatively avoid gaze at others in several real-world situations. This discrepancy, along with theoretical considerations, spawned doubts about the appropriateness of classical laboratory-based experimental paradigms in social attention research. Several researchers instead suggested the use of immersive virtual scenarios in eliciting and measuring naturalistic attentional patterns, but the field, struggling with methodological challenges, still needs to establish the advantages of this approach. Here, we show using eye-tracking in a complex social scenario displayed in virtual reality that participants show enhanced attention towards the face of an avatar at near distance and demonstrate an increased reactivity towards her social gaze as compared to participants who viewed the same scene on a computer monitor. The present study suggests that reactive virtual agents observed in immersive virtual reality can elicit natural modes of information processing and can help to conduct ecologically more valid experiments while maintaining high experimental control.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
301-314Subventions
Organisme : European Research Council
ID : 336305
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Psychological Society.
Références
Birmingham, E., Bischof, W. F., & Kingstone, A. (2008). Gaze selection in complex social scenes. Visual Cognition, 16(2-3), 341-355. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280701434532
Borji, A., Parks, D., & Itti, L. (2014). Complementary effects of gaze direction and early saliency in guiding fixations during free viewing. Journal of Vision, 14, 3-3. https://doi.org/10.1167/14.13.3
De Haas, B., Iakovidis, A. L., Schwarzkopf, D. S., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2019). Individual differences in visual salience vary along semantic dimensions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(24), 11687-11692.
Desimone, R. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18(1), 193-222. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.18.1.193
End, A., & Gamer, M. (2017). Preferential processing of social features and their interplay with physical saliency in complex naturalistic scenes. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 418. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00418
Gallup, A., Chong, A., & Couzin, I. (2012). The directional flow of visual information transfer between pedestrians. Biology Letters, 8, 520-522. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2012.0160
Gallup, A., Vasilyev, D., Anderson, N., & Kingstone, A. (2019). Contagious yawning in virtual reality is affected by actual, but not simulated, social presence. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 294. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36570-2
Gobel, M. S., Kim, H. S., & Richardson, D. C. (2015). The dual function of social gaze. Cognition, 136, 359-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.040
Guy, N., Azulay, H., Kardosh, R., Weiss, Y., Hassin, R. R., Israel, S., & Pertzov, Y. (2019). A novel perceptual trait: Gaze predilection for faces during visual exploration. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 359-364. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47110-x.
Itti, L. (2005). Quantifying the contribution of low-level saliency to human eye movements in dynamic scenes. Visual Cognition, 12, 1093-1123. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280444000661
Kennedy, R. S., Lane, N. E., Berbaum, K. S., & Lilienthal, M. G. (1993). Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(3), 203-220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3
Kulik, A. (2018). Virtually the ultimate research lab. British Journal of Psychology, 109, 434-436. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12307
Laidlaw, K. E. W., Foulsham, T., Kuhn, G., & Kingstone, A. (2011). Potential social interactions are important to social attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 5548-5553. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1017022108
Mital, P. K., Smith, T. J., Hill, R. L., & Henderson, J. M. (2010). Clustering of gaze during dynamic scene viewing is predicted by motion. Cognitive Computation, 3, 5-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-010-9074-z
Pan, X., & Hamilton, A. (2018). Why and how to use virtual reality to study human social interaction: The challenges of exploring a new research landscape. British Journal of Psychology, 109, 395-417. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12290
R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Risko, E. F., Richardson, D. C., & Kingstone, A. (2016). Breaking the fourth wall of cognitive science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 70-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415617806
Rubo, M., & Gamer, M. (2018). Social content and emotional valence modulate gaze fixations in dynamic scenes. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22127-w
Rubo, M., Huestegge, L., & Gamer, M. (2019). Social anxiety modulates visual exploration in real life but not in the laboratory. British Journal of Psychology, 111, 233-245. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12396
Schubert, T., Friedmann, F., & Regenbrecht, H. (2001). The experience of presence: Factor analytic insights. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 10(3), 266-281. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601300343603
Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 70-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.009
Skarbez, R., Frederick Brooks, J., & Whitton, M. (2017). A survey of presence and related concepts. ACM Computing Surveys, 50, 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134301
Welsh, T. N., Lyons, J., Weeks, D. J., Anson, J. G., Chua, R., Mendoza, J., & Elliott, D. (2007). Within- and between-nervous-system inhibition of return: Observation is as good as performance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 950-956. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194127
Wienrich, C., Gross, R., Kretschmer, F., & Muller-Plath, G. (2018). Developing and proving a framework for reaction time experiments in VR to objectively measure social interaction with virtual agents. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) (pp. 191-198). https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2018.8446352
Würbel, H. (2000). Behaviour and the standardization fallacy. Nature Genetics, 26(3), 263-263. https://doi.org/10.1038/81541.
Zimmer, P., Buttlar, B., Halbeisen, G., Walther, E., & Domes, G. (2019). Virtually stressed? A refined virtual reality adaptation of the trier social stress test (TSST) induces robust endocrine responses. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 101, 186-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.11.010