1 / 17

Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference

Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. S. Shimojo, C. Simion, E. Shimojo, and Scheier 발표 : 생물심리 전공 설선혜. Introduction.

zenia
Télécharger la présentation

Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference S. Shimojo, C. Simion, E. Shimojo, and Scheier 발표: 생물심리 전공 설선혜

  2. Introduction • Emotions and attitudes have the function of preparing people to act (i.e. approach or aversion) in such a way that the individual need not have much insight into what causes his or her behavior. (Darwin,1872) • The subjective experience of emotions is following facial expression rather than preceding it. (Zanjonc, 1985) • Implicit somatosensory inputs influence emotional and cognitive processes. (Zajonc/ Neumann and Strack, 1999)

  3. Introduction • Orienting behavior is intrinsically linked to emotionally involved processes. (Maner et al., 2002)

  4. Introduction In this study… • Orienting behavior  gaze direction • Emotionally involved processes  preference decisions • The hypothesis is… • Gazing has and active role in preference formation and decision makings. • Two experiments • Two-alternative forced choice task • Gaze manipulation

  5. Experiment1: Methods • Two-alternative forced-choice task • Face attractiveness rating (score 1-7) • Eye movement data collection: Video-based eye tracker(30Hz) • All trials were aligned at the moment of response, 1.67s before decision. • The likelihood curve was fitted with a sigmoid function • Main tasks 1) Face-attractive easy (>3.25) 2) Face-attractive difficult (<0.25) • Control tasks 1) Face-roundness task 2) Face-dislike task

  6. Experiment 1: Results Face attractiveness -difficult Face attractiveness -easy Face-roundness Face-dislike Fourier-descriptor-attractiveness Figure 1 A progressive bias in observers’ gaze toward chosen stimulus

  7. Experiment 1: Results Face attractiveness -difficult Face attractiveness -easy Main Face-roundness Face-dislike Control • significant difference between the heights of likelihood curves in the main tasks and the control tasks • Curves did not reach a saturation level in the main tasks •  gaze cascade effect

  8. Experiment 1: Results • Gaze cascade effect - The gaze bias is continually reinforced when attractiveness comparisons are to be made. • Dual-contribution model

  9. Experiment 1: Results • A larger cascade effect in the difficult task  When the cognitive biases are weak, gaze would contribute more to the decision making. Face attractiveness -difficult Face attractiveness -easy

  10. Experiment 1: Results • Is it evolved from social interaction or basic orienting behavior? • Abstract shape attractiveness task • Basic orienting behavior! • Orienting is essential, particularly when the cognitive systems cannot be discriminative in making preference decisions over a rage of stimuli.

  11. Experiment 1: Results • Is the effect relying on memory? • Two-session face attractiveness task (one-day inter delay) 2nd session Decision changed (22.3%) 1st session • No! • The cascade effect reflects the process of decision making itself.

  12. Experiment 2: Methods • Gaze manipulation • Control (central) 900ms 300ms 900ms 300ms

  13. Experiment 2: Results • Gaze manipulation, preference 1) Horizontal (2, 6, 12 repetitions) 2) Vertical - to ascertain that saccade size and direction is not important

  14. Experiment 2: Results • Control 1) No gaze shift, central (retinotopically identical) 2) No gaze shift, peripheral - to distinguish mere exposure effect from gaze bias

  15. Results: Experiment 2 • Control 3) Gaze manipulation, roundness - to find out whether specific to preference tasks.

  16. Results: Experiment 2 • Table 1 Results of Experiment 2 (gaze manipulation)  Gaze directly influences preference formation

  17. Conclusion • Dual-contribution model of preference formation

More Related