gaze and eye contact a research review pdf writers

Gaze and eye contact a research review pdf writers

File Name: gaze and eye contact a research review writers.zip
Size: 1425Kb
Published: 20.11.2020

Why People Avoid Eye Contact

Affective Eye Contact: An Integrative Review

Why People Avoid Eye Contact

Tips for Making and Keeping Eye Contact

Why do we find video calls so draining? They also require us to stare directly at a screen for minutes at a time without any visual or mental break, which is tiring. To make video calls less exhausting for yourself, try using a few research-based tips.

Why People Avoid Eye Contact

Dogs discriminate human direction of attention cues, such as body, gaze, head and eye orientation, in several circumstances. Eye contact particularly seems to provide information on human readiness to communicate; when there is such an ostensive cue, dogs tend to follow human communicative gestures more often. However, little is known about how such cues influence the production of communicative signals e.

Dogs increased visual communicative behaviors when they established eye contact with their owners, a different strategy compared to apes and baboons, that intensify vocalizations and gestures when human is not visually attending. The difference in strategy is possibly due to distinct status: domesticated vs wild. Results are discussed taking into account the ecological relevance of the task since pet dogs live in human environment and face similar situations on a daily basis during their lives.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. However, how these cues affect the production of communicative signals in dogs has not been thoroughly explored [ 5 — 7 ].

New information on this matter has been found and is presented here along with comparative literature and a discussion regarding its ecological relevance.

It is also ecologically relevant for non-human primates living in social groups, showing cooperation, sharing food and socially learning complex tasks [ 11 — 15 ], as well as for animal-human interactions. Furthermore, it is an important skill for communicative purposes: wild chimpanzees Pan paniscus use gesture in a functionally intentional manner adjusting to audience [ 16 , 17 ].

Attempts to identify which human attention cues are used by monkeys and apes in communicative contexts have led to mixed results. Rhesus macaques Macaca mulatta discriminated gross cues including body and face orientation, but not eyes status [ 18 ]. They tended to use more gaze alternation when the experimenter also displayed gaze alternation when compared to inattentive conditions. However, they did not produce vocalizations when the experimenter was inattentive.

Bourjade and colleagues [ 19 ] claimed that baboons also understood the state of human eyes. This finding corroborates a study [ 11 ] in which capuchin monkeys successfully adjusted their requesting gestures to the human direction of attention when the experimenter was holding food, but did not discriminate these cues when they had to produce gestures directed to food on a table. It is important to note that monkeys and apes tested in captivity usually perform tasks with no or little ecological relevance, while dogs and infants are embedded in a meaningful context, suitable to their phylogenetic and ontogenetic history.

Development is always an essential issue to be considered in comparative studies of behavior [ 23 ]. Since studies have shown that different methodologies can lead to different results, the ecological relevance of the task must be taken into account when interpreting these results. It is widely accepted that the experimental paradigm in which dogs request for food replicates an ecological relevant situation common in their development, eliciting communicative behaviors functionally similar to those used by infants [ 7 , 26 ], thus representing a valid paradigm to evaluate which human attention cues are used by dogs when communicating.

There is evidence that dogs use human direction of attention when begging or performing forbidden actions [ 1 — 4 ]. They seem to be more sensitive to the direction of the human body and head rather than the eyes [ 1 , 27 ]. However, a recent study found evidence that dogs can discriminate isolated internal features of a human face, and that the eyes region seems to have a special role in human face processing [ 28 ].

Several studies in dogs showed that they are able to distinguish what humans can and cannot see in different situations, such as when they have the opportunity to steal food, to fetch toys or to beg for food [ 29 — 31 ]. Gaunet and Deputte [ 32 ] also found that dogs positioned themselves in an optimal location so that owners could see them when they were communicating about a target in the environment. However, dogs did not modulate communicative behaviors when they saw their owners witnessing or not a toy being hidden [ 26 ], and they hardly differentiated the eyes status of blind or sighted owners [ 5 , 33 ].

Moreover, they did not try to hide their approach to a forbidden food when they could not see a human present [ 34 ]. These authors showed that dogs chose preferentially to beg for food from an attentive person when the inattentive person was reading a book than when the inattentive person had a strange bucket over their head, which suggests that dogs were more sensitive to stimuli found in the home environment.

In fact, a number of studies have shown that dogs are able to follow human gaze to locate hidden food [ 36 — 39 ]. Some still argue that dogs usually avoid eye contact when fearful [ 41 ], but there are evidences that, in a friendly and cooperative situation between dogs and owners, eye contact does not pose a threat, but instead, it would facilitate communication [ 42 ].

In fact, when humans communicate with dogs, they generally use visual signals that provide information regarding the focus of attention; a recent study found that dogs displayed more attention-getting behaviors when the owners were gazing directly at them than when the owners averted their gazes [ 43 ].

Notably, eye contact signalizes for both sender and recipient that they are motivated for initializing or maintaining communication [ 24 , 44 ]. Moreover, Nagasawa and colleagues [ 45 ] have recently shown empirical support to the hypothesis that eye contact is involved in social attachment between dogs and owners.

Referential visual communication, as deictic behaviors and gaze following, requires joint visual attention, i. In a recent study, dogs were submitted to a naturalistic situation in which they needed to communicate with their owners in order to get an inaccessible food.

Results showed that dogs met the criteria for referential and intentional communication [ 7 ]. Dogs alternated more gazes between the food and their owners in the facing condition compared to when their owners had their backs turned. However, as far as we know no study evaluated the use of more subtle cues of visual direction of attention by dogs during such a task. For the present study, the owner was always positioned in front of the food setting. In one condition, the owner was visually following the dog and remained available to make eye contact Visually following.

In other five experimental conditions, the owner presented different levels of visual attention: looking straight ahead at a spot marked on the exit door Fixed point , with eyes closed Eyes closed , looking up by moving only the eyes Eyes up , gazing upwards by moving both head and eyes Gazing upwards , or reading a book Gazing downwards Fig 1. Since Savalli and colleagues [ 7 ] found that when the owner had their back turned to the dog, the use of gaze alternation decreased, in the current study dogs were expected to display more visual communicative behaviors such as sustained gazes towards owner or food and gaze alternation between the owner and the food in Visually following when compared to other conditions.

Dogs and humans have developed a cooperative relationship throughout phylogenetic and ontogenetic history, which enabled dogs to acquire human-like communication modes such as mutual gaze [ 24 ]. Non-human primates and humans, on the other hand, have not shared such common history, except for enculturated apes.

Since requesting for food replicates an everyday life experience for dogs, we expect to find in the present study more robust and clear results than those observed with non-human primates usually submitted to experimental tasks with little ecological relevance.

Twelve male and ten female adult pet dogs took part in the study average age 5. According to their owners, these dogs usually displayed begging behavior in the presence of food and did not present signs of distress in unfamiliar places.

None of the owners wore glasses. The experimental room is shown in Fig 2. Shelves could be positioned at two different heights to make food unreachable for dogs of different sizes. The subjects could see the food and place their paws on the shelves if they stretched their bodies, but the food remained inaccessible.

There was a unidirectional microphone attached to a crossbar connecting two walls placed in the center of the room. Two cameras recorded all trials. We used a familiarization phase to show the dog that, although the experimenter was the one placing the food on the shelf, the owner would be the food provider.

The owner stood at the marked location and the experimenter stood in front of the owner on the other side of the room. The experimenter placed the food on one of the shelves and returned to their location. Then the owner immediately called the dog by its name, walked towards the food shelf, got the food and gave it to the subject. This procedure was repeated alternating between the two shelves until the dog looked at the owner for the first time, as soon as the experimenter had placed the food on the shelf.

The average number of repetitions required to meet this criterion was on average 8. Therefore, the familiarization phase established a baseline for the main procedure regarding the link between the food and the owner as the food provider. Prior to testing, the owner received a brief explanation of experimental conditions.

The experimental phase consisted of six conditions described below presented sequentially, only once to each dog, with intervals of approximately five minutes between conditions; the order of these six conditions was counterbalanced across dogs using block randomization. The side on which the food was positioned left or right was also randomized, with the restriction that one side could not be used more than twice consecutively.

A helper remained in the adjacent room, controlling entries of the experimenter, the owner and the dog into the experimental room. Each trial included two parts: placement of food and dog exposure. In the first part, the experimenter took the dog to the experimental room with the food.

Then the owner entered the experimental room and stood at their marked location Fig 2 in front of the food setting and remained quiet. Immediately after the owner entered the room, the helper closed the door and the second part began. Dogs were presented, for 30 seconds, to one of the following condition Fig 1 :.

At the end of each trial, the helper opened the door to the adjacent room and called back the owner and the dog. In the adjacent room, during the interval between conditions, dogs and owners interacted as usual, and owners gave their dogs a piece of food that was not the shelf food , so they continued associating the situation with food availability.

For each dog, overlapping behaviors i. Total duration of each trial 30 seconds was used to calculate relative durations and frequencies of all behaviors, except for Gaze alternation, to which only the absolute number was used. Since behaviors could overlap e. Gazing at owner and Vocalization could happen at the same time , the duration and frequency of each behavior was calculated considering all occurrences, regardless of whether it was isolated or in combination with any other behavior.

In order to evaluate whether dogs used their own location as a local enhancement signal [ 32 ], we computed how long duration only subjects spent in specific areas using the location of their two front legs. Lines delimitating areas close to the shelves were painted on the floor, and the area of interest was a rectangle, 1.

Total duration of each trial 30 seconds was also used to calculate relative duration that dogs spent in this area. For the following variables, the duration and frequency of Gazing at owner, Gazing at food, the time spent in Food area and the number of Gaze alternation between the owner and the food, a first GEE model Generalized Estimated Equation was used to evaluate the demographic effects, gender and age, and the order of presentation of experimental conditions.

The first three trials as well as the last three ones were pooled to test the order effect. Once established that these factors did not significantly affect target behaviors, each variable was analyzed with a GEE model including experimental condition as the fixed effect, and, the Wald statistic was used to test the specific hypotheses of this study detailed bellow. The number of Gaze alternation was considered as a counting variable in the GEE model.

The dependence caused by repeated observations in the same dog was incorporated in the model, and, a False Discovery Rate FDR was used to correct for multiple comparisons in the same dependent variable [ 51 ]. Vocalization, Silent mouth licking, Sonorous mouth licking, Contact with owner and Gazing upwards were rare, almost zero for all subjects in all experimental conditions see medians and interquartile-range in S1 Table.

Therefore, a non-parametric approach was adopted for them. Comparisons between two conditions were performed using a Wilcoxon two-sample signed-rank tests [ 52 ], and a False Discovery Rate FDR was used in order to correct for multiple two by two comparisons in the same dependent variable [ 51 ]. Even though the owner was inattentive to the dog in both experimental situations, if dogs specifically discriminate the direction of the head, they were expected to be less prone to displaying visual communicative signals during the Gazing upwards condition when compared to the Eyes up condition.

Visually following represented the most favorable condition for dogs to display visual communicative signals since the owner was attentive to the dog and available to make eye contact, thus a higher rate of visual communicative signals was expected when comparing this condition to the other five experimental conditions. In case of differences between this condition and the Visually following in terms of visual communicative behaviors, an effect of the availability of eye contact and head movement would be highlighted Fig 1 —Sensitivity to the eye contact.

Higher differences in the rate of visual communicative signals were expected for the Gazing upwards and Gazing downwards conditions with respect to Visually following , since the first two were the most evident inattentive conditions. The SAS software, version 9. All tests were two-tailed. Results indicated a good agreement between raters. The duration and frequency of Gazing at owner, the duration of Gazing at food and the number of Gaze alternation did not differ during Fixed Point , Eyes up and Eyes closed conditions, nor during Eyes up and Gazing upwards conditions statistics in Table 1.

The comparisons among Fixed point , Gazing upwards and Gazing downwards conditions statistics in Table 1 also revealed no difference regarding those variables. Significant differences are in bold.

Affective Eye Contact: An Integrative Review

Strong communication skills can help you in both your personal and professional life. While verbal and written communication skills are important, research has shown that nonverbal behaviors make up a large percentage of our daily interpersonal communication. How can you improve your nonverbal communication skills? The following tips can help you learn to read the nonverbal signals of other people and enhance your own ability to communicate effectively. People can communicate information in numerous ways, so pay attention to things like eye contact, gestures , posture, body movements, and tone of voice. All of these signals can convey important information that is not put into words.

Thank you for visiting nature. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer. In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript. In most primates, eye contact is an implicit signal of threat, and often connotes social status and imminent physical aggression.


The current research aimed at investigating how subtle cues of human attention (​direction of eyes, head, gaze, and eye contact) affect dogs'.


Why People Avoid Eye Contact

Dogs discriminate human direction of attention cues, such as body, gaze, head and eye orientation, in several circumstances. Eye contact particularly seems to provide information on human readiness to communicate; when there is such an ostensive cue, dogs tend to follow human communicative gestures more often. However, little is known about how such cues influence the production of communicative signals e.

Subscribe to our FREE newsletter and start improving your life in just 5 minutes a day. This is a guest post for Skills You Need. Want to contribute? Find out how.

A facial expression is one or more motions or positions of the muscles beneath the skin of the face. According to one set of controversial theories, these movements convey the emotional state of an individual to observers. Facial expressions are a form of nonverbal communication. They are a primary means of conveying social information between humans , but they also occur in most other mammals and some other animal species.

Facial expression

Using a factorial design, the study examined the effects of three online situational factors—anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye contact—on inducing self-disclosure and prosocial behaviors as expressions of benign online disinhibition. Results suggested that the interaction between anonymity and invisibility had a significant effect on the revealing of emotions. Lack of eye contact, the interaction between anonymity and invisibility and the interaction between lack of eye contact and invisibility had a significant effect on the inducement of first-person words.

Tips for Making and Keeping Eye Contact

However, considerably less attention has been devoted to investigating the affective effects triggered by eye contact. Two important themes emerged from this review. These contradictory findings may be related, for example, to differences between studies in terms of the capability of direct-gaze stimuli to elicit feelings of self-involvement. Second, studies relying on various implicit measures have reported more consistent results; they indicate that direct gaze increases affective arousal, and more importantly, that eye contact automatically evokes a positively valenced affective reaction.

 Ну и что ты скажешь, моя красавица. Выйдешь за меня замуж. Лежа в кровати с балдахином, она смотрела на него и знала, что ей нужен именно. Навсегда.

 Да нет же, черт возьми.

Tips for Making and Keeping Eye Contact

За восемь месяцев работы в лаборатории Фил Чатрукьян никогда не видел цифр в графе отсчета часов на мониторе ТРАНСТЕКСТА что-либо иное, кроме двух нулей. Сегодня это случилось впервые. ИСТЕКШЕЕ ВРЕМЯ: 15:17:21 - Пятнадцать часов семнадцать минут? - Он не верил своим глазам.  - Это невозможно. Он перезагрузил монитор, надеясь, что все дело в каком-то мелком сбое. Но, ожив, монитор вновь показал то же. Чатрукьяну вдруг стало холодно.

Дэвид в опасности… или того хуже.

4 comments

  • Allyriane D. 21.11.2020 at 00:20

    Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate. Authors: Kyveli Kompatsiari at Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia GCE (ms) as a function of gaze condition (eye contact vs. no eye contact). a gaze-cueing effect, suggesting that these individuals reflexively orient to gaze (for a review, see [1]).

    Reply
  • Jeff C. 23.11.2020 at 20:57

    This article reviews research concerning the effects of others' gaze direction on observers' affective responses. is direct gaze (eye contact) perceived as affectively more positive or The authors interpreted their results in the context of the social Article; |; PubReader; |; ePub (beta); |; PDF (K); |; Cite.

    Reply
  • Tanktersxicall 26.11.2020 at 12:10

    online deception has an impact on eye gazing behaviors. Kleinke, C. L. () Gaze and eye contact: a research review, Psychological Bulletin, , 1.

    Reply
  • Thomas R. 27.11.2020 at 11:30

    What is blackbody radiation pdf jak przetworzyc pdf to mp3

    Reply

Leave a reply