Re-examining left visual field advantage in gaze cueing effect

Re-examining left visual field advantage in gaze cueing effect | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Re-examining left visual field advantage in gaze cueing effect Lan Li, Jiajia Yang, Huahua Li, Jingting Yu, Zhonghua Hu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7237829/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The gaze cueing effect, which refers to the phenomenon where the gaze direction of others induces shifts of attention, has been a focal point of debate concerning visual field asymmetries in processing social cues. Previous studies using schematic faces have suggested a left visual field (LVF) advantage in processing gaze cues when participants were instructed to fixate on the screen center. This advantage was attributed to the right hemisphere dominance in processing social cues. However, the reliance on verbal instructions for fixation control has been criticized for potential inaccuracies in maintaining precise central fixation, and the use of schematic faces may not fully represent real-face processing. This study aimed to fully re-examining the existence of the LVF advantage in the gaze cueing effect. Four experiments were conducted employing two types of methods to ensure accurate central fixation while participants viewed both real and schematic faces. Contrary to previous findings, the LVF advantage in the gaze cueing effect was not observed across all experiments, indicating a lack of support for the hypothesized visual field asymmetry. These results suggest that the visual field asymmetries in gaze-triggered attention shifts remain ambiguous and necessitate further systematic investigation. Biological sciences/Neuroscience Biological sciences/Psychology Social science/Psychology gaze cueing effect shift of attention visual field asymmetries real faces eye tracking Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Introduction Eye gaze is serves as a valuable source of information in social interactions, conveying emotional (Flusberg et al., 2023 ), directional (Gao et al., 2023 ), intentional (Koochaki & Najafizadeh, 2021 )and various other types of information. Gaze direction is considered a vital spatial cue that can signal threat and reward information in the environment, playing a key role in human survival and social interaction (Kingstone et al., 2000 ). Gaze cues induced the reflexive shifts of attention were initially identified in a variation of the Posner cueing paradigm (Friesen & Kingstone, 1998 ). The central screen displays a schematic face with its gaze direction as a directional cue in this variation. Following a period of time, a target will appear on the left or right side of the face, and participants need to press a key to determine the location of the target. Even if the gaze cues are not predictive, participants still respond faster when the gaze direction is consistent with the target location than inconsistent with the target. This phenomenon is known as the Gaze Cueing Effect (GCE). Further studies typically measure the magnitude of the Gaze cueing effect by using the difference in reaction times (RT) between the inconsistent condition and the consistent condition (referred to as the Gaze cueing effect size) (Okada et al., 2006 ; Yokoyama & Takeda, 2019 ). Understanding the complexity of human cognition, emotion, and behavior begins with exploring the inter-hemispheric functional asymmetry in the brain. Gaze direction is a salient social stimulus that has been extensively studied for its asymmetrical processing at both behavioral and neural level. For instance, the detection and judgement of gaze direction in the left visual field (LVF) is significantly better than in the right visual field (Ricciardelli, 2002 ; Coelho et al., 2006 ; Palanica & Itier, 2011 ). Participants in the gaze directional judgement task tend to perceive the virtual face's eye gaze direction (left or right) as leftward, suggesting a potential leftward perceptual bias in processing gaze direction (Zhang et al., 2021 ). Electrophysiological and fMRI studies have both revealed a similar asymmetry in brain mechanisms when processing gaze direction. The amplitude of N170 in the right hemisphere is found to be significantly larger than that in the left hemisphere during the processing of gaze direction (Wang et al., 2019 ). The right superior temporal sulcus (right STS)plays a crucial role in processing gaze direction, being activated by gaze direction, and inhibiting the right STS with TMS decreased eye perception, whereas inhibiting the left STS did not impact on eye perception. (Engell & Haxby, 2007 ; Saitovitch et al., 2016 ; Blain et al., 2023 ). The processing of gaze direction frequently relies on facial context and is commonly regarded as a social cue. The studies have shown the dominance of the right hemisphere in processing faces and social information, resulting in a behavioral advantage in the LVF (Grand et al., 2003 ; Nummenmaa et al., 2010 ; Semrud-Clikeman et al., 2011 ). Visual field asymmetry in the processing of gaze cue was initially observed in callosotomy patients. Kingstone et al ( 2000 ) found that the gaze cueing effect was present only in the LVF in two callosotomy patients. The study used schematic face, which was presented simultaneously on the left and right side of the screen (left and right visual field), with the target appearing either above or below the face. The result offers evidence for the dominance of the right hemisphere in processing gaze cues. Following studies in typical populations have also supported this visual field asymmetry effect. Okada et al. ( 2006 ) by using paradigm align with prior study (Kingstone et al., 2000 ) found the gaze cueing effect in the LVF was significantly stronger than in the right in the typical populations. Notably, the LVF advantage is specifically responsive to social cues, rather than being a universal characteristic of spatial cue (like arrow) processing, as demonstrated by studies (Ristic et al., 2002 ). Numerous studies support the dominance of the right hemisphere in processing gaze cues, yet some neuroimaging and behavioral findings raise doubts about that. For instance, Hietanen et al. ( 2006 ) from gaze cueing paradigm found that the inferior occipital gyrus (IOG) is activated bilaterally when processing gaze cues. Furthermore, in the direction localization task, Materna et al. (2008)observed bilateral activation of pSTS, with comparable activation levels in both hemispheres. Processing of gaze cues in the brain may involve complex coordination between the left and right hemispheres when gaze direction serves as a cue, as it combines spatial and social attributes. In the behavioral level, some studies have also found that left and right visual field don’t influence behavioral responses of participants in gaze discrimination and gaze cueing tasks (Wiese et al., 2013; Matsuyoshi et al., 2014 ). The processing of gaze cues is a complex cognitive process that involves perceiving gaze faces, judging gaze direction, suppressing gaze direction interference, and orienting to the target. Given this complexity—and the interplay of spatial, social, and attentional mechanisms involved—visual field asymmetries in gaze cue processing remain poorly understood and demand systematic exploration. Overall, previous studies examining the LVF advantage in processing gaze cues have encountered some issues. Firstly, dividing the left and right visual fields by the indirect method of verbal instruction to control fixation may not provide adequate control the fixation locations of participants, because anticipatory saccades may be initiated before stimulus presentation (Bourne, 2006 a). Secondly, while previous studies have shown LVF advantage effects of gaze cues in schematic faces, no research has explored these effects in real faces. Previous studies have shown that the type of face image can influence the magnitude of the gaze cueing effect, with schematic faces producing stronger effects compared to real faces (Hietanen & Leppänen, 2003 ). This difference may be due to the simpler physical features of schematic faces and the increased salience of the eyes, which may enhance the processing of gaze direction. In contrast, in reality, the extraction of gaze direction information from the eyes may be influenced by facial information such as the eyebrow bone, the relative position of the pupil to the sclera, and light-dark contrast, as well as head orientation information (Langton et al., 2000 ; Shinki Ando, 2004 , n.d.; Todorović, 2006 ). In reality social interactions, the shifts of attention induced by gaze cues are based on real faces, and it is unclear whether the LVF advantage effect of gaze cues observed for schematic faces can be directly generalized to real faces. Thus, the existence of the LVF advantage in the gaze cueing effect is still controversial and deserves further investigation. Based on the above, this study utilized real faces and eye-tracking methods to re-examine the LVF advantage gaze cueing effect. Four experiments were conducted to investigate visual field advantage in processing gaze cues. The visual field advantage in processing gaze cues was examined in both real and schematic faces, and the visual field was controlled using the indirect method of verbal instruction and the direct method of eye-tracking. Given the divergent results across previous studies and the lack of clear theoretical consensus on LVF advantage in processing gaze cues, our study advances no specific anticipate hypotheses. Instead, the primary study is to conduct a comprehensive exploration of potential LVF advantages in gaze cueing effects to provide some novel empirical evidence for visual field asymmetry in processing social cue. Experiment 1 The SOA in Experiment 1 was set to 200 ms, as previous studies have indicated the gaze cueing effect to be more stable in this condition (Frischen et al., 2007). Although, studies have shown a LVF advantage for processing gaze cues in schematic faces (Okada et al., 2006, 2012), this phenomenon remains entirely unexamined in real faces. Consequently, no a prior hypotheses were formulated regarding the LVF advantage in real faces. Method Participants The sample size required for the experiment was estimated using G*Power 3.1.9.2. A design of 2 × 2 within-subjects ( f = 0.25, α = 0.05, 1-β = 0.8) required a minimum of twenty-four participants. Twenty-eight undergraduate students (females = 18, males = 10, mean age = 19.93 years, SD = 1.39) from University were recruited as volunteers to participate in this study, and all participants signed an informed consent form before participating in the experiment. The participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision, and all were right-handed. All participants were naive to the purpose of the research and received monetary compensation after the experiment. Stimulus and Apparatus Seven models (males = 3, females = 4) were recruited, One female model only appeared in the practice sessions, while the other six models (males = 3, females = 3) presented in the formal experiment. Each model was photographed with facial images in three gaze directions (looking straight up, looking up 45°, and looking down 45°), each with a neutral expression, for a total of 21 images. The face images were standardized using Adobe Photoshop 2020 (see Fig.1), retaining the model's face with a uniform grey background, adjusted brightness, consistent contrast, and a dimensional size of 320 pixels wide by 450 pixels high. The stimuli were presented on a 19-inch CRT monitor (1280 × 1024 pixels, 60Hz refresh rate). The experiment was set up and controlled by E-Prime2.0 (Psychology Software Tools, 2012; https://pstnet.com /products/e-prime/). INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE Experimental Procedure and Design A 2 (visual field: LVF, RVF) × 2 (congruency: congruent, incongruent) within-subjects design was employed. In a quiet room, participants were seated 60 cm from a 19-inch monitor. Participants were instructed to fixate the central cross when it was appeared on the screen during the whole each trial. Before the formal experiment, there were 24 practice trials which were identical to the content of the formal experiment, but the model that had appeared in the practice trials would not appear in the formal experiment. After the practice trials, participants performed the experiment. At the beginning of each trial, a central fixation cross was presented on the screen. After 1000ms, two neutral faces of the same model simultaneously appeared 3.82° from screen center on both sides for 1000ms. Then, one of the faces cued a location by gazing up 45° or gazing down 45°, after 200ms SOA, a target appeared upper or lower on the cued face side. Cue and target remained on the screen until response. Participants required to respond for the target location as quickly and accurately as possible. Half of the participants used right index figure to press the keyboard, whereas the other half used left index figure to press. The target appeared above or below the face by pressing “↑” key or “↓” key. The cues indicated the side of the target (LVF or RVF), but were not predictive (50%) of whether the target was to appear in the upper or lower. Congruency defined by gaze direction and target location. The gaze direction of the face looking directly towards the target is the congruent condition; otherwise, it is the incongruent condition. The response hand was counterbalanced among participants. The experiment consisted of 192 trials in 2 blocks of 96 trials each, with a 2-minute break between each block, lasted for 20 minutes (see Fig.2). INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE Data analysis First, all trials in which participants responded incorrectly were excluded (0.48%), and second, the mean RT for correct responses in each experimental condition was calculated, excluding trials in which the mean RT was outside ± 3 SD (1.55%). SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 24.0 (IBMCorp., Armonk, N.Y., USA; https: //www.ibm.com/support/pages/downloading-ibm-spss-statistics-24) was used to analyze the data. Mean RT was the dependent variable, and a 2 (visual field: LVF, RVF) × 2 (congruency: congruent, incongruent) repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted. Simple effects analysis were performed with Bonferroni correction, and effect sizes were measured using partial eta squared. Simultaneously, the Bayes factor BF01 was calculated using JASP software as an indication of the degree of support for the null hypothesis (H0) in the current data. The value of Bayes factor BF01 ranges from 0 to ∞, where BF01 = 1 indicates that there is no evidence to support H0, and the larger the value of BF01, the stronger the evidence to support H0 (For example, a Bayes factor value of 1-3 indicates that there is weak evidence to support the null hypothesis, 3-10 indicates that there is moderate evidence to support the null hypothesis, and 10 or more indicates that the evidence to support the null hypothesis is stronger) (Hu et al., 2018). Results All participants were include the statistic analysis. A repeated-measures ANOVA with gender as a between-subjects factor revealed no significant main effect ( F (1,26) = 1.212, p = 0.281) or interaction effect ( ps > 0.1) related to gender. Therefore, gender will not be analyzed in the subsequent analysis. The ANOVA showed (see Fig.3) a significant main effect of congruency ( F (1,27) = 15.703, p < 0.001, ηp 2 = 0.368, BF01 = 0.015), with mean RT in the congruent condition being significantly faster than those in the incongruent condition. The main effect of visual field was not significant ( F (1,27) = 0.008, p = 0.931, BF01 = 4.055). No significant interaction effect was found for visual field and congruency ( F (1,27) = 0.017, p = 0.898, BF01 = 4.103). INSERT FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE In Experiment 1, we investigated whether the LVF advantage of processing gaze cues exists for real faces. Consistent with previous studies, gaze cueing effect exist for real faces, and gaze direction can trigger reflexive attention shifts. However, in the present study, we did not find a LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect. Experiment 2 Experiment 1 did not show a LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect. In Experiment 1, we instructed participants to fixate on the central cross by indirect method of fixation control using verbal instructions. It may happen that participants' attention shifted away from the central cross during the experiment, which can lead to changes in the left and right visual fields (Patching & Jordan, 1998), thus preventing us from observing the LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect. Therefore, we employed a direct method that eye-tracking technology in Experiment 2 to strictly controlled participants' gaze positions and ensure that the gaze was always maintained at the central cross. Previous studies have shown that the cue-target interval (stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA) modulates the gaze cueing effect (GCE) and that shifts of attention produced in different SOA conditions are not characteristically the same, with shifts of attention produced in the short SOA (200-400 ms) being considered reflexive and those in the long SOA (> 600 ms) being considered voluntarily (Friesen & Kingstone, 1998; McKay et al., 2021). Previous evidence suggests that the influence of variables such as emotional faces and mental states on the gaze cueing effect is also moderated by SOA (Teufel et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2021). Studies on the visual field asymmetry of the gaze cueing effect have found that it appears in the LVF at short SOA, whereas it disappears in the left at long SOA (Kingstone et al., 2000; Greene & Zaidel, 2011). However, in Experiment 1, we did not observe a LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect in the short SOA condition. Therefore, in Experiment 2, we set up two SOA conditions (200 ms and 800 ms) to further investigate the possible effects of SOA on the visual field asymmetry of the gaze cueing effect. Method Participants Twenty-eight (females = 14, mean age = 20.14 years, SD = 1.62) undergraduate volunteers were recruited for Experiment 2, and all participants signed an informed consent form before participating. Participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and were all right-handed. All participants were naive to the purpose of the study and received monetary compensation after the experiment. Stimulus and Apparatus Same material as Experiment 1. Participants' gaze was tracked with the right eye using an eye-tracker (EyeLink 1000, SR Research; 1000Hz sample rate) mounted on a tabletop. Stimuli were displayed on a 19-inch CRT monitor (1280 × 1024 pixels, 60Hz refresh rate) of a computer running E-Prime2.0 (Psychology Software Tools, 2012; https://pstnet.com/products/e-prime/). Participants were seated in front of the monitor from 65cm (eye-to-screen distance: 65 cm), with the participant's head resting on a chin pad. Experimental Procedure and Design A 2 (visual field: LVF, RVF) × 2 (congruency: congruent, incongruent) × 2 (SOA: 200ms, 800ms) within-subjects design was employed. In a dimly lit, soundproofed room, participants sat in front of a 19-inch monitor with their head resting on a chin pad. Participants were instructed to fixate on the central cross throughout, avoiding head tilt. Thirty-two practice trials were completed, identical to the formal trials but using different model. At the beginning of the experiment, participants were required to pass a nine-point calibration. Experiment 2 consisted of two SOA conditions, 200 ms and 800 ms, with the same procedure as in Experiment 1 and a counterbalanced response hands across participants. The experiment consisted of 384 trials, divided into four blocks of 96 trials each, with a 2-minute break between blocks, lasted for 40 minutes (see Fig.4). Before each trial, a drift check was performed with the participant looking at the central cross of the screen and the experimenter pressing the space bar to trigger the check. The maximum deviation from the fixation point allowed by the system was 2°, the standard for eye-tracking systems. The eye movements had to be recorrected if the drift check didn’t passed. INSERT FIGURE 4 ABOUT HERE Data analysis Eye movement data of each participant was first analyzed, and a rectangular region of interest of 2 cm × 2 cm was created with the position of the central cross on the screen. The trials in which the fixation point remained within the region of interest throughout the trial for each participant were considered valid trials. The trials with fixation point outside the region of interest or unmonitored by the eye-tracker were considered invalid. All invalid trials were excluded from the analysis (21%), while valid trials were retained (79%). Incorrect trials (0.23% of the trials) and outliers (defined as trials in which the mean RT was outside ± 3 SD (3.8%)) were then excluded from the formal statistical analysis. RT was the dependent variable and was analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA with the within-subjects factors visual field (left, right), SOA (200 ms, 800 ms), and congruency (congruent, incongruent). Data from Experiment 2 were similarly analyzed using SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 24.0 (IBMCorp., Armonk, N.Y., USA; https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/downloading-ibm-spss-statistics-24) as same as experiment 1. Simple effects analysis were made using a Bonferroni correction, and effect sizes were measured using a biased eta-squared measure. The Bayes factor BF01 was reported. Results All participants were include the statistic analysis. A repeated-measures ANOVA with gender as a between-subjects factor revealed no significant main effect ( F (1,26) = 0.129, p =0.722) or interaction effect ( ps > 0.1) related to gender. Therefore, gender will not be analyzed in the subsequent analysis. The ANOVA showed (see Fig.5) the main effects of congruency ( F (1,27) = 31.379, p < 0.001, ηp 2 = 0.538, BF01 = 4.311×10 -4 ), with mean RT in the congruent condition being significantly shorter than those in the incongruent condition. And there existed the main effect of SOA ( F (1,27) = 42.626, p < 0.001, ηp 2 = 0.612, BF01 = 3.020×10 -5 ), mean RT in 200ms condition was significantly longer than 800ms. Visual field also had the significant main effect ( F (1,27) = 9.444, p = 0.005, ηp 2 = 0.259, BF01 = 0.397), with mean RT in the LVF was slower than in the RVF. A significant interaction was found between the SOA and congruency ( F (1,27) = 8.007, p = 0.009, ηp 2 = 0.229, BF01 = 0.206), in the condition of congruent, when the SOA was 200ms, the RT was significantly slower than the SOA was 800ms ( p < 0.001). Furthermore, there were no significant interaction effects, neither between the visual field and congruency ( F (1,27) = 0.027, p = 0.868, BF01 = 4.06) nor between the visual field and SOA ( F (1,27) = 0.776, p = 0.378, BF01 = 4.323 ). INSERT FIGURE 5 ABOUT HERE In Experiment 2, we used an eye-tracking device to ensure that the participants' attention remained on the fixation point at the centre of the screen. Still, we did not find the LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect. Based on this, we speculate that the LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect may not exist in real faces. In order to further explore the LVF advantage effect, in the subsequent Experiment 3, we replicated the experiment conducted by Okada et al. (2006) to verify further the LVF advantage effect in schematic faces. Experiment 3 In Experiment 1 and Experiment 2, the LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect was not found in real faces. Therefore, in Experiment 3, we replicated the experiment of Okada et al. (2006) and used the same experimental materials and procedure. Method Participants Forty undergraduate students participated in Experiment 3, and one participant (female) was excluded from the formal analysis because responed correctly only 2 trials. The number of valid participants was 39 (females = 26, males = 13, mean age = 20.00 years, SD = 1.47 years). All participants signed an informed consent form before participating in the experiment. Participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and were all right-handed. All participants were naive to the purpose of the study and received monetary compensation after the experiment. Stimulus and Apparatus Experiment 3 used schematic faces from the study by Okada et al. (2006) as the experimental materials. The schematic faces consisted of black lines. The faces contained three gaze directions: straight up, 45° up, and 45° down (see Fig.6). The images were presented uniformly with a white background, adjusted brightness, uniform contrast, and a size of 282 pixels wide by 284 pixels high. Stimuli were presented on a 19-inch CRT monitor (1280 × 1024 pixels, 60Hz refresh rate) of a computer running E-Prime2.0 (Psychology Software Tools, 2012; https://pstnet.com/products/e-prime/). INSERT FIGURE 6 ABOUT HERE Experimental Procedure and Design The experiment employed a 2 (visual field: LVF, RVF) × 2 (congruency: congruent, incongruent) within-subjects design, visual field and congruency as the within-subjects variables. Participants were seated 60 cm from the monitor, and participants were instructed to fixate the central cross on the screen during each trials to avoid head and gaze deviations. The experimental procedure was consistent with previous studies (see Fig.7). Before the start of each trial, a warning alarm ("ding") was used as a reminder, and then two no pupil schematic faces appeared on the screen. After 675 ms, the gaze direction of the LVF or RVF faces was shifted either upward or downward. The change in gaze direction was randomized. The SOA of 200 ms, faces disappeared and the two target circles presented upper or lower of the schematic faces. Targets remained on the screen until response. 675 ms later, the subsequent trial began. Gaze direction was not predictive of cues (50%). Half of the participants first responded with their right index figure and then with their left index figure, and vice versa for the other half. The targets appeared above or below the face by pressing “↑” key or “↓” key. The response hand was used as a within-subject variable, and the order of response hands was counterbalanced among participants. The total experiment consisted of 160 trials which were divided into two sessions. Participants were required to use right index figure to respond in one session, and the other session was required to change hands for responding. At the start of the session, participants were given 16 practice trials. After the practice trials, participants were asked to complete 80 formal trials with the left or right index finger. The 80 trials were divided into five blocks, and each block contained 16 trials, with a 15s rest period between each block. After one session were completed, participants were asked to change another index finger to respond, and given another 16 practice trials. The order in which the trials were presented in the blocks was randomized. INSERT FIGURE 7 ABOUT HERE Data analysis In order to compare the results with those of Okada et al. (2006), the data excluding and subsequent data analysis in this study fully replicated the data analysis methods of Okada et al. (2006). All data in this study were statistically analyzed using SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 24.0 (IBMCorp., Armonk, N.Y., USA; https://www.ibm.com/support/ pages/downloading-ibm-spss-statistics-24). First, incorrect response trials (4.9%) were excluded, and the mean RT for correct response trials was calculated. Second, data outside ± 2 SD (standard deviations) of the mean RT were considered outliers and excluded (0.3%). A total of 40 participants participated in this experiment; one was excluded from analysis because of high error rate (＞50%), and 39 participants were included in the statistical analysis. Consistent with previous data analyses, the present study measured the magnitude of the gaze cueing effect using the difference between the mean RT of the incongruent condition and the mean RT of the congruent condition in each experimental condition (Gaze cueing effect size). A 2 × 2 × 2 repeated measures ANOVA was also conducted with gaze cueing effect size as the dependent variable and response hand (left and right), visual field (left and right), and target position (up and down) as within-subjects variables. To test for differences in RT between visual fields, a 2 (visual field: left, right) × 2 (congruency: congruent, incongruent) repeated measures ANOVA was performed with mean RT as the dependent variable. Simple effects analysis were performed with a Bonferroni correction using a partial eta-squared measure of effect size, and the Bayes factor BF01 was also reported. Results INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE The results of the ANOVA for the magnitude of the gaze cueing effect (see Tab.1 and Fig.8) showed that there was no significant difference in the magnitude of the gaze cueing effect on the visual field ( F (1,38) = 0.579, p = 0.451, ηp 2 = 0.015, BF01 = 3.45) and that none of the other main effects or interaction effects ( ps ＞0.1) were significant. The results of the present study are inconsistent with those of Okada et al. (2006), which found a significant main effect of visual field ( F (1,38) = 4.4, p ＜0.05). INSERT FIGURE 8 ABOUT HERE Subsequently, a 2 (visual field: left, right) × 2 (congruency: congruent, incongruent) ANOVA of mean RT revealed a significant main effect only in congruency ( F (1,38) = 56.57, p ＜0.001, ηp 2 = 0.598, BF01 = 4.50×10 -7 ). The main effect of the visual field ( F (1,38) = 0.95, p = 0.34, ηp 2 = 0.024, BF01 = 3.53)and the interaction effect of visual field × congruency ( F (1,38) = 0.34, p = 0.56, ηp 2 = 0.009, BF01 = 3.63)were not significant (see Fig.9). A significant interaction effect of visual field × congruency ( F (1,38) = 4.4, p ＜0.05)was found in a previous study (Okada et al., 2006). In contrast, no significant interaction effect was found in the present study. The mean RT analysis results in the present experiment were consistent with the magnitude of the gaze cueing effect analysis results. We did not reveal a LVF advantage in the gaze cueing effect. INSERT FIGURE 9 ABOUT HERE Experiment 4 In Experiment 3, we did not find a LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect in the schematic faces, which may have been due to less stringent control of the fixation position. Therefore, we added eye tracker to Experiment 4 to control the gaze positions strictly. We expected to find a LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect in the tightly controlled condition. Methods Participants Experiment 4 recruited 40 undergraduate volunteers (females = 26, males = 14, mean age = 19.83 years, SD = 1.36). All participants signed an informed consent form before participating in the experiment. Participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and were all right-handed. All participants were naive to the purpose of the study and received monetary compensation at the end of the experiment. Stimulus and Apparatus Consistent with the experimental material of Experiment 3. The experiment was programmed using E-prime 2.0 (Psychology Software Tools, 2012; https://pstnet.com/products/e-prime/). Participants' right-eyed vision was tracked using an eye-tracking device (EyeLink 1000, SR Research; 1000Hz sample rate) fixed on a tabletop. Material images were displayed on a 19-inch CRT monitor (1280×1024 pixels, 60Hz refresh rate). During experiment, the participant was seated in front of the monitor (eye-to-screen distance: 65 cm), and the participant's head was resting on a chin pad. Experimental Procedure and Design The experimental procedure and design was the same as in Experiment 3. At the start of the experiment, all participants passed a nine-point calibration. Before each trial, a drift check was performed in which the participant was asked to fixate the central cross on the screen, and then the experimenter pressed the space bar. During the drift check, the maximum allowed deviation of the fixation point from the circle position was set to the default value of 2° for the eye tracking system. After the drift check was completed, the subsequent trial was displayed, and if the participant was unable to complete the drift check, the eye tracking calibration was repeated. Data analysis In Experiment 4, SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 24.0 (IBMCorp., Armonk, N.Y., USA; https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/downloading-ibm-spss-statistics-24) was also used for data analysis. The eye movement data processing in Experiment 4 was the same as in Experiment 2. The invalid trials were excluded from the analysis (14.8%), while the valid trials (85.2%) were retained. Data exclusion criteria were identical to Experiment 3, excluding trials with incorrect responses (1.16%) and trials outside ± 2 SD of the mean correct RT (2.29%). Experiment 4 had 40 participants; 2 were excluded from subsequent analyses due to fewer than 80 valid trials, and 38 were included in the statistical analyses. Experiment 4 and Experiment 3 were statistically analyzed using the same methods and reporting the same metrics. Results INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE The results of the ANOVA on the magnitude of gaze cueing effect (see Tab.2 and Fig.10) showed that the magnitude of gaze cueing effect was not significantly different in the visual field ( F (1,37) = 0.173, p = 0.68, ηp 2 = 0.005, BF01 = 5.45 ) and did not reveal any significant main or interaction effects ( ps ＞0.1). INSERT FIGURE 10 ABOUT HERE Subsequently, a 2 (visual field: left, right) × 2 (congruency: congruent, incongruent) ANOVA of mean RT revealed a significant main effect of congruency only ( F (1,37) = 66.87, p ＜0.001, ηp 2 = 0.644, BF01 = 6.23×10 -8 ), a main effect of the visual field ( F (1,37) = 0.039, p = 0.844, ηp 2 = 0.001, BF01 = 4.79) and the interaction effect of visual field × congruency ( F (1,37) = 0.035, p = 0.852, ηp 2 = 0.001, BF01 = 4.20) were not significant (see Fig.11). The results for mean RT were consistent with the gaze cueing effect size results. INSERT FIGURE 11 ABOUT HERE General Discussion In a series of four experiments using adapted Posner's cueing paradigm, the study tested for LVF advantage in the gaze cueing effect. Real faces and schematic faces were used as experimental materials, and fixation location of participants was controlled by using indirect or direct method of fixation control. The results showed a classical gaze cueing effect for both face types, but there was no observed LVF advantage in the gaze cueing effect. Gaze cues in the LVF induced similar magnitudes of the gaze cueing effect as those in the RVF. Attention shifts induced by gaze direction were found in all four experiments of the present study, suggesting that observers use the gaze direction of others as a cue to adjust their attention toward where others are looking. This finding is consistent with previous findings that gaze cues induce attentional shifts in observers, whether in fundamental social interactions or real pictorial material, even when gaze direction does not predict target location (Downing et al., 2004; Lachat et al., 2012). Furthermore, the gaze cueing effect is not affected by the type of face image, and it has been observed for both real and schematic faces (Friesen & Kingstone, 1998; Holmes et al., 2010). This suggests that the gaze cueing effect is reliable and can occur in various situations. None of the four experiments in the present study revealed the presence of a LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect, which is not consistent with the findings of (Okada et al., 2006). We consider that there exist three potential explanations for this. First, different processing stages for gaze cues involve different cognitive processing. Face recognition studies have found that different cognitive processing stages may be involved during the task. There may be differences in the hemispheres involved in different processing stages, thus involving changes in the dominant hemisphere at different processing stages and adjustments and alterations in the processing strategy for the information (Turkewitz & Ross, 1983; Corballis & Gratton, 2003). In the present study, the gaze cueing task similarly involves different processing stages, and individuals make strategic adjustments and changes in the dominant hemisphere during the task, which may make the behavioral outcomes exhibited by individuals not significantly different in the visual field. Second, there may be inter-individual differences in the processing of gaze cues, which may result in the visual field asymmetry of gaze cueing effect being canceled out across individuals. Previous neuroimaging studies have found that the activation level of the right hemisphere is higher than the left hemisphere during face processing, and thus, the right hemisphere is thought to be the dominant hemisphere for face processing (Yovel et al., 2003; Pelphrey & Carter, 2008). However, Thome et al. (2022) found significant inter-individual differences in cerebral hemispheric lateralization in a study of face perception in real people, with only about 50% of participants showing right hemisphere dominance, while the other portion of participants showed bilateral or left hemisphere dominance. A recent study using the Diffusion Decision Model (DDM) to analyze the attentional orienting and information processing mechanisms behind the gaze cue effect found inter-individual differences in the magnitude of the gaze cueing effect (Alister et al., 2024). Finally, in real life and authentic social interactions, the social stimuli that individuals need to process are more complex. Processing complex social stimuli may require collecting more comprehensive information, which may be accompanied by visual attention (changes in the direction of eye gaze, limb, and head-turning) (Skarratt et al., 2012). During the process of evolution, these demands may prompt us not to dominantly process social cues in a certain unilateral field of view. A study presented soccer players with the same soccer-playing scene in their bilateral visual fields and asked them to freely observe the situation and complete a feature recognition task (identifying the direction in which the players were running on the screen) and a perception task (perception of the number of players on the screen), and found that there was no significant difference in judgmental accuracy across visual fields in both tasks (Klatt et al., 2020). At the same time, it has also been found that when task-related stimuli are more complex, hemispheric lateralization effects disappear (Jonides, 1979; Schwartz & Kirsner, 1982; Schach et al., 2023). The present study found no visual field asymmetry in the processing of gaze cues, which is consistent with the findings of some previous studies of visual lateralization patterns. In letter categorization experiments, the right visual field dominance that was initially demonstrated fades as the difficulty of the letter categorization experiment increases (Jonides, 1979). Compared to the previous Posner cueing paradigm, the task in the present study was more difficult. The participants are required to use their peripheral vision to capture the gaze cue information in the left and right visual fields and then localize the target that appears subsequently. The complex task may result from cooperation involving both hemispheres rather than the dominance of one hemisphere. In addition, previous studies have used cross-sectional studies to investigate the lateralization of visual attention in three age groups (9, 13, and 18 years), and their results did not reveal the lateralization of visual attention (Shapiro & Hynd, 1985). Meanwhile, in the study by Okada et al. (2008), they also found no LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect in a healthy population. These results may suggest that the visual field asymmetry of gaze cue processing may not be a stable phenomenon. Compared with the original experiment, although the experimental materials and procedures remained largely consistent with that, some differences may also have contributed to our failure to successfully replicate the LVF advantage in the gaze cueing effect in the current experiment. First, in experiment designed by Okada et al. (2006), the range of participants' mean RT for the congruent and incongruent conditions in the left and right visual fields is from 300 ms to 325 ms. In contrast, participants' mean RT in the present study ranged from 430 ms to 470 ms. Participants in the present study, RT were slower by close to 100 ms, which may be attributed to the fact that they underwent cognitive strategic adjustments and were more cautious in their judgments to perform the task better. For example, they may have adopted a more holistic and balanced approach to processing the information in the left and right visual fields, resulting in a non-significant difference in RT between the left and right visual fields and the disappearance of the LVF advantage effect. Second, the original experiment screened participants for dominant handing through the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (Oldfield, 2013), in which participants were screened for right-handedness by the scale. The Edinburgh Handedness Inventory contains 10 activities, and participants are required to self-assess the frequency of using their left or right hand in these 10 activities. However, our experiment did not use scale to screen participants’ dominant hand, and we only judged whether participants were right-handed or not by the self reports, which may exhibit discrepancies with actual conditions, and handedness could potentially influence lateralization patterns. In addition to this, a recent study found that players of action video games (e.g., Temple Run, Crossfire, etc.) have diminished lateralization of attentional orienting and have comparable behavioral performance in response to stimuli in the left and right visual fields (Li et al., 2019). Data from the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) reported that there are as many as 552 million video game users in China as of July 2022. A 2018 Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) survey on Chinese college students found that close to 50% of female students said they play video games. Video games may not have been popular among college students in 2006, while the percentage of female college students playing video games may be lower. The participants in this study may include a significant portion of video game players. The lateralization of attentional orienting may be weaker in this participants, so our study did not find the same results as the study of Okada et al. (2006). In four experiments, we did not observe a LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect, which does not rule out the possibility of a biased lateralization tendency for the processing of direction and the attentional shifts induced by the gaze cue. Because the four experiments in this study were behavioral, we did not separate the processing stages of gaze cues, and we need to investigate further whether there is a biased processing advantage in different processing stages. In the future, we can try to incorporate brain imaging techniques to explore whether there is a neural bias in processing different stages of gaze cues. Second, because a recent study found that video game players have a reduced lateralization advantage in attentional orienting, the present study did not investigate the participants' video game playing in advance. We cannot rule out the possibility that the influence of video games may have led to the reduction or disappearance of the lateralization advantage of the participants in the present study in the processing of gaze cues. Future studies may also include this factor in the study of visual field lateralization in the processing of gaze cues. Conclusion The gaze cueing effect was observed for both real and schematic faces, but it was not more pronounced in the LVF than in the RVF for either type of face. These findings are the first to show a lack of LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect for both real and schematic faces. While our results do not definitively rule out the presence of this phenomenon, they suggest that the question of a visual field asymmetry for gaze cues warrants further investigation. Declarations Ethics approval The study complied with the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by the Ethics Committee of University on March 30, 2022(Approval No:220330) after which the data collection process commenced until September 23, 2024. Informed Consent Informed consent from all participants in our study was obtained during the period from April 1, 2022, to September 23, 2024, before to them participate in the experiments. Also each model signed a portrait rights license agreement giving us permission to use their picture as experimental material and to publish them. Competing interests No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Author Contribution Z.H. and J.Y. conceived and designed the experiments. L.L. , J.Y. , H.L. and J.Y. performed the data acquisition and analyzed the data. Z.H. and L.L. interpreted the data and drafted the manuscript. All authors revised and approved the manuscript. Acknowledgement We would like to express our heartfelt thanks to the participants who came to our experiment. Data Availability Sequence data that support the findings of this study have been deposited in the Mendeley Data with the DOI of 10.17632/ktn9dwnjwz.1. The materials during the current study available from the corresponding author. References Alister, M., McKay, K. T., Sewell, D. K., & Evans, N. J. (2024). Uncovering the cognitive mechanisms underlying the gaze cueing effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77 (4), 803–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231181238 Blain, S. D., Taylor, S. F., Rutherford, S. E., Lasagna, C. A., Yao, B., Angstadt, M., Green, M. F., Johnson, T. D., Peltier, S., Diwadkar, V. A., & Tso, I. F. (2023). Neurobehavioral indices of gaze perception are associated with social cognition across schizophrenia patients and healthy controls. Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science, 132 (6), 733–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000846 Bourne, V. J. (2006). The divided visual field paradigm: Methodological considerations. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 11 (4), 373–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500600633982 Chen, Z., McCrackin, S. D., Morgan, A., & Itier, R. J. (2021). The Gaze Cueing Effect and Its Enhancement by Facial Expressions Are Impacted by Task Demands: Direct Comparison of Target Localization and Discrimination Tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 618606. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.618606 Coelho, E., George, N., Conty, L., Hugueville, L., & Tijus, C. (2006). Searching for asymmetries in the detection of gaze contact versus averted gaze under different head views: A behavioural study. Spatial Vision, 19 (6), 529–545. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856806779194026 Corballis, P. M., & Gratton, G. (2003). Independent control of processing strategies for different locations in the visual field. Biological Psychology, 64 (1–2), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511 (03)00109-1 Downing, P., Dodds, C., & Bray, D. (2004). Why does the gaze of others direct visual attention? Visual Cognition, 11 (1), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280344000220 Engell, A. D., & Haxby, J. V. (2007). Facial expression and gaze-direction in human superior temporal sulcus. Neuropsychologia, 45 (14), 3234–3241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.06.022 Flusberg, S. J., Shapiro, D., Collister, K. B., & Thibodeau, P. H. (2023). Things are looking up: Vertical eye gaze in the environment affects perceptions of emotional valence in sad faces. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76 (7), 1641–1657. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218221135429 Friesen, C. K., & Kingstone, A. (1998). The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5 (3), 490–495. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208827 Frischen, A., Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). Gaze Cueing of Attention. Psychological Bulletin, 133 (4), 694–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.694 Gao, W., Lin, Y., Shen, J., Han, J., Song, X., Lu, Y., Zhan, H., Li, Q., Ge, H., Lin, Z., Shi, W., Drugowitsch, J., Tang, H., & Chen, X. (2023). Diverse effects of gaze direction on heading perception in humans. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhac541 Grand, R. L., Mondloch, C. J., Maurer, D., & Brent, H. P. (2003). Expert face processing requires visual input to the right hemisphere during infancy. Nature Neuroscience, 6 (10), 1108–1112. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1121 Greene, D. J., & Zaidel, E. (2011). Hemispheric differences in attentional orienting by social cues. Neuropsychologia, 49 (1), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.11.007 Hietanen, J. K., & Leppänen, J. M. (2003). Does Facial Expression Affect Attention Orienting by Gaze Direction Cues? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29 (6), 1228–1243. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.6.1228 Hietanen, J. K., Nummenmaa, L., Nyman, M. J., Parkkola, R., & Hämäläinen, H. (2006). Automatic attention orienting by social and symbolic cues activates different neural networks: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 33 (1), 406–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.06.048 Holmes, A., Mogg, K., Garcia, L. M., & Bradley, B. P. (2010). Neural activity associated with attention orienting triggered by gaze cues: A study of lateralized ERPs. Social Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470910903422819 Jonides, J. (1979). Left and Right Visual Field Superiority for Letter Classification. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31 (3), 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640747908400737 Kingstone, A., Friesen, C. K., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (2000). Reflexive Joint Attention Depends on Lateralized Cortical Connections. Psychological Science, 11 (2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00232 Klatt, S., Ford, P. R., & Smeeton, N. J. (2020). Attentional and perceptual asymmetries in an immersive decision-making task. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82 (4), 1847–1857. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01935-w Koochaki, F., & Najafizadeh, L. (2021). A Data-Driven Framework for Intention Prediction via Eye Movement With Applications to Assistive Systems. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 29, 974–984. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2021.3083815 Lachat, F., Conty, L., Hugueville, L., & George, N. (2012). Gaze Cueing Effect in a Face-to-Face Situation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36 (3), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-012-0133-x Langton, S. R. H., Watt, R. J., & Bruce, V. (2000). Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4 (2), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613 (99)01436-9 Li, Y., Jin, X., Wang, Y., & Niu, D. (2019). Reduced Lateralization of Attention in Action Video Game Players. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1631. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01631 Materna, S., Dicke, P. W., & Thier, P. (n.d.). Dissociable Roles of the Superior Temporal Sulcus and the Intraparietal Sulcus in Joint Attention: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study. 20 (1). Matsuyoshi, D., Kuraguchi, K., Ashida, H., & Watanabe, K. (2014). Interhemispheric differences in the perception of human gaze direction. 2014 6th International Conference on Knowledge and Smart Technology (KST), 116–118. https://doi.org/10.1109/KST.2014.6775406 McKay, K. T., Grainger, S. A., Coundouris, S. P., Skorich, D. P., Phillips, L. H., & Henry, J. D. (2021). Visual attentional orienting by eye gaze: A meta-analytic review of the gaze-cueing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 147 (12), 1269–1289. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000353 Nummenmaa, L., Passamonti, L., Rowe, J., Engell, A. D., & Calder, A. J. (2010). Connectivity Analysis Reveals a Cortical Network for Eye Gaze Perception. Cerebral Cortex, 20 (8), 1780–1787. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp244 Okada, T., Sato, W., Kubota, Y., Toichi, M., & Murai, T. (2012). Right hemispheric dominance and interhemispheric cooperation in gaze‐triggered reflexive shift of attention. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 66 (2), 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1819.2011.02302.x Okada, T., Sato, W., Kubota, Y., Usui, K., Inoue, Y., Murai, T., Hayashi, T., & Toichi, M. (2008). Involvement of medial temporal structures in reflexive attentional shift by gaze. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3 (1), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsm027 Okada, T., Sato, W., & Toichi, M. (2006). Right hemispheric dominance in gaze-triggered reflexive shift of attention in humans. Brain and Cognition, 62 (2), 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2006.04.001 Oldfield, R. C. (2013). Edinburgh Handedness Inventory [Dataset]. https://doi.org/10.1037/t23111-000 Palanica, A., & Itier, R. J. (2011). Searching for a perceived gaze direction using eye tracking. Journal of Vision, 11 (2), 19–19. https://doi.org/10.1167/11.2.19 Patching, G. R., & Jordan, T. R. (1998). Increasing the benefits of eye-tracking devices in divided visual field studies of cerebral asymmetry. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 30 (4), 643–650. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209482 Pelphrey, K. A., & Carter, E. J. (2008). Charting the typical and atypical development of the social brain. Development and Psychopathology, 20 (4), 1081–1102. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579408000515 Perception of Gaze Direction Based on Luminance Ratio—Shinki Ando, 2004. (n.d.). Retrieved March 23, 2025, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1068/p5297 Ricciardelli, P. (2002). A left visual field advantage in perception of gaze direction. Neuropsychologia, 40 (7), 769–777. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932 (01)00190-7 Ristic, J., Friesen, C. K., & Kingstone, A. (2002). Are eyes special? It depends on how you look at it. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9 (3), 507–513. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196306 Saitovitch, A., Popa, T., Lemaitre, H., Rechtman, E., Lamy, J.-C., Grévent, D., Calmon, R., Meunier, S., Brunelle, F., Samson, Y., Boddaert, N., & Zilbovicius, M. (2016). Tuning Eye-Gaze Perception by Transitory STS Inhibition. Cerebral Cortex, 26 (6), 2823–2831. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw045 Schach, S., Braun, D. A., & Lindner, A. (2023). Cross-hemispheric recruitment during action planning with increasing task demand. Scientific Reports, 13 (1), 15375. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-41926-4 Schwartz, S., & Kirsner, K. (1982). Laterality Effects in Visual Information Processing: Hemispheric Specialisation or the Orienting of Attention? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 34 (1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748208400858 Semrud-Clikeman, M., Goldenring Fine, J., & Zhu, D. C. (2011). The Role of the Right Hemisphere for Processing of Social Interactions in Normal Adults Using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Neuropsychobiology, 64 (1), 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1159/000325075 Shapiro, M. S., & Hynd, G. W. (1985). The development of functional lateralization in visual hemifield attention. Developmental Neuropsychology, 1 (1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565648509540299 Skarratt, P. A., Cole, G. G., & Kuhn, G. (2012). Visual cognition during real social interaction. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00196 Teufel, C., Alexis, D. M., Clayton, N. S., & Davis, G. (2010). Mental-state attribution drives rapid, reflexive gaze following. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72 (3), 695–705. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.3.695 The importance of context information for the spatial specificity of gaze cueing | Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. (n.d.). Retrieved June 13, 2025, from https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-013-0444-y Thome, I., García Alanis, J. C., Volk, J., Vogelbacher, C., Steinsträter, O., & Jansen, A. (2022). Let’s face it: The lateralization of the face perception network as measured with fMRI is not clearly right dominant. NeuroImage, 263, 119587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119587 Todorović, D. (2006). Geometrical basis of perception of gaze direction. Vision Research, 46 (21), 3549–3562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2006.04.011 Turkewitz, G., & Ross, P. (1983). Changes in Visual Field Advantage for Facial Recognition: The Development of a General Processing Strategy. Cortex, 19 (2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452 (83)80013-6 Wang, N., Xu, S., Zhang, S., Luo, Y., & Geng, H. (2019). ERP evidence on how gaze convergence affects social attention. Scientific Reports, 9 (1), 7586. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44058-w Yokoyama, T., & Takeda, Y. (2019). Gaze Cuing Effects in Peripheral Vision. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 708. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00708 Yovel, G., Levy, J., Grabowecky, M., & Paller, K. A. (2003). Neural Correlates of the Left-Visual-Field Superiority in Face Perception Appear at Multiple Stages of Face Processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15 (3), 462–474. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892903321593162 Zhang, Y., Hu, Q., Lai, X., Hu, Z., & Gao, S. (2021). Fear-specific leftward bias in gaze direction judgment. Scientific Reports, 11 (1), 17574. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97039-3 HU Chuan-Peng, KONG Xiang-Zhen, Eric-Jan WAGENMAKERS, Alexander LY, PENG Kaiping. (2018). The Bayes factor and its implementation in JASP: A practical primer. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(6), 951-965. Tables Table 1.The mean RT for respond hand、visual field、target location and GCE ( M ± SD ， ms) Lefthand Righthand Up Down Up Down LVF Congruent 436.89 ± 77.16 448.99 ± 84.90 443.26 ± 92.93 443.53 ± 87.27 Incongruent 461.62 ± 72.51 483.89 ± 74.57 461.06 ± 81.81 469.83 ± 91.73 GCE 24.72 ± 48.19 34.90 ± 57.67 17.80 ± 44.79 26.30 ± 53.72 RVF Congruent 437.62 ± 81.61 438.39 ± 87.04 435.28 ± 85.05 438.44 ± 80.27 Incongruent 472.68 ± 81.66 481.71 ± 86.75 456.61 ± 92.13 463.57 ± 86.02 GCE 35.06 ± 40.58 43.32 ± 63.89 21.33 ± 47.15 25.13 ± 39.70 Table 2.The mean RT for respond hand、visual field、target location and GCE ( M ± SD ， ms) Lefthand Righthand Up Down Up Down LVF Congruent 468.69 ± 75.65 477.66 ± 73.98 463.98 ± 84.16 467.25 ± 81.63 Incongruent 495.91 ± 76.73 499.56 ± 79.21 491.26 ± 80.10 503.30 ± 89.57 GCE 27.23 ± 34.42 21.90 ± 34.96 27.28 ± 47.10 36.05 ± 39.86 RVF Congruent 469.27 ± 69.10 468.09 ± 68.51 462.57 ± 82.43 476.51 ± 81.94 Incongruent 501.84 ± 75.17 490.17 ± 70.15 494.15 ± 81.17 507.15 ± 94.09 GCE 32.58 ± 41.22 22.08 ± 48.81 18.58 ± 101.15 30.64 ± 35.15 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7237829","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":503523481,"identity":"395027ba-8e63-43e0-8b69-c74401952518","order_by":0,"name":"Lan Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sichuan Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lan","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""},{"id":503523482,"identity":"2c4dacde-9369-4fe3-98b2-90b1d38bab69","order_by":1,"name":"Jiajia Yang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sichuan Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jiajia","middleName":"","lastName":"Yang","suffix":""},{"id":503523483,"identity":"b4fcf6ca-0081-4bdf-8eec-9832b8c1f0c6","order_by":2,"name":"Huahua Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sichuan Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Huahua","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""},{"id":503523484,"identity":"4b6c62d5-fc37-451c-bdcd-80e31a361e6e","order_by":3,"name":"Jingting Yu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sichuan Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jingting","middleName":"","lastName":"Yu","suffix":""},{"id":503523485,"identity":"eca4e8e8-2012-4bca-8d0f-12be684066d4","order_by":4,"name":"Zhonghua Hu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sichuan Normal University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zhonghua","middleName":"","lastName":"Hu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-29 01:23:11","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7237829/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7237829/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":89862631,"identity":"c396be91-f9c3-488c-8b2c-e2b270f18a39","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 21:30:38","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":119644,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExperiment 1. Example of a female and a male model displaying the three gaze directions.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7237829/v1/7d2355c4f6144e23181b2422.jpg"},{"id":89863261,"identity":"be702cc8-dae2-4cbf-819c-cd6c8c70d429","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 21:46:38","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":36197,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExperiment 1. A schematic diagram of a trial, with the order of the trial going from left to right. This example represents a trial with a congruent condition.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7237829/v1/763a4c44c257ac5c98d8e7fb.jpg"},{"id":89863079,"identity":"d4ab2b26-ec19-4045-aa8f-508c0b82c8fd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 21:38:38","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":7527,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExperiment 1. Mean RT (with standard error) for visual field × congruency.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7237829/v1/31444860379d357108918c4b.jpg"},{"id":89862642,"identity":"1aee09d9-a6a2-4543-8944-d6fcdb400b29","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 21:30:38","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":36754,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExperiment 2. A schematic diagram of a trial, with the order of the trial going\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003efrom left to right. This example represents a trial with a congruent condition.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7237829/v1/4bd6f03466e5d5404be531b4.jpg"},{"id":89863262,"identity":"6e3d4a0b-236f-4f54-8b6f-2c434543a4a1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 21:46:38","extension":"jpg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":23853,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExperiment 2. Mean RT (with standard error) for visual field × congruency.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure5.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7237829/v1/8c98d8f77ee8c269dafb0703.jpg"},{"id":89863083,"identity":"f06ab930-2244-4e40-a789-17b1dc496ce6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 21:38:38","extension":"jpg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":12223,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExperiment 3. Schematic facial stimuli.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure6.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7237829/v1/dfd94960bcd10c057aec1e22.jpg"},{"id":89862656,"identity":"cc4b1bb8-9f81-467f-b2d5-be108fb8d23e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 21:30:38","extension":"jpg","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":17153,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExperiment 3. A schematic diagram of a trail, with the order of the trial going from left to right. This example represents a trial with a congruent condition.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure7.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7237829/v1/b6bfd16d7748660b52f9f6e2.jpg"},{"id":89862648,"identity":"058d1f35-29ba-4541-80e2-f31a07436c75","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 21:30:38","extension":"jpg","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":8750,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExperiment 3. GCE (with standard error) for visual field × respond hand × location.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure8.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7237829/v1/25f953569cf80cfe9f35ee99.jpg"},{"id":89862646,"identity":"73e7e5e5-64af-4c11-b084-943bce189375","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 21:30:38","extension":"jpg","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":5569,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExperiment 3. Mean RT (with standard error) to congruent and incongruent in the gaze cueing task.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure9.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7237829/v1/1b22d5d7b15689e6805b8469.jpg"},{"id":89862650,"identity":"d7ec70a6-7df2-47dc-983d-33bff1e2e2f4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 21:30:38","extension":"jpg","order_by":10,"title":"Figure 10","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":8652,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExperiment 4. GCE (with standard error) for visual field × respond hand × location.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure10.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7237829/v1/4b1b1b6c61d23193c1704976.jpg"},{"id":89863264,"identity":"68a31915-02d7-43b9-a0c0-49c4c83329c3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 21:46:38","extension":"jpg","order_by":11,"title":"Figure 11","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":6084,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExperiment 4. Mean RT (with standard error) to congruent and incongruent in the gaze cueing task.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure11.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7237829/v1/2b4c2a1febf6573d04231a6d.jpg"},{"id":103850173,"identity":"ca6f972c-73d5-4217-8c0c-a41fa1cfa143","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-03 16:26:14","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":911868,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7237829/v1/ec0512dc-3b3d-4ea4-8275-68ee09aca111.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Re-examining left visual field advantage in gaze cueing effect","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eEye gaze is serves as a valuable source of information in social interactions, conveying emotional (Flusberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), directional (Gao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), intentional (Koochaki \u0026amp; Najafizadeh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)and various other types of information. Gaze direction is considered a vital spatial cue that can signal threat and reward information in the environment, playing a key role in human survival and social interaction (Kingstone et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Gaze cues induced the reflexive shifts of attention were initially identified in a variation of the Posner cueing paradigm (Friesen \u0026amp; Kingstone, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). The central screen displays a schematic face with its gaze direction as a directional cue in this variation. Following a period of time, a target will appear on the left or right side of the face, and participants need to press a key to determine the location of the target. Even if the gaze cues are not predictive, participants still respond faster when the gaze direction is consistent with the target location than inconsistent with the target. This phenomenon is known as the Gaze Cueing Effect (GCE). Further studies typically measure the magnitude of the Gaze cueing effect by using the difference in reaction times (RT) between the inconsistent condition and the consistent condition (referred to as the Gaze cueing effect size) (Okada et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Yokoyama \u0026amp; Takeda, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnderstanding the complexity of human cognition, emotion, and behavior begins with exploring the inter-hemispheric functional asymmetry in the brain. Gaze direction is a salient social stimulus that has been extensively studied for its asymmetrical processing at both behavioral and neural level. For instance, the detection and judgement of gaze direction in the left visual field (LVF) is significantly better than in the right visual field (Ricciardelli, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Coelho et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Palanica \u0026amp; Itier, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Participants in the gaze directional judgement task tend to perceive the virtual face's eye gaze direction (left or right) as leftward, suggesting a potential leftward perceptual bias in processing gaze direction (Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Electrophysiological and fMRI studies have both revealed a similar asymmetry in brain mechanisms when processing gaze direction. The amplitude of N170 in the right hemisphere is found to be significantly larger than that in the left hemisphere during the processing of gaze direction (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). The right superior temporal sulcus (right STS)plays a crucial role in processing gaze direction, being activated by gaze direction, and inhibiting the right STS with TMS decreased eye perception, whereas inhibiting the left STS did not impact on eye perception. (Engell \u0026amp; Haxby, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Saitovitch et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Blain et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The processing of gaze direction frequently relies on facial context and is commonly regarded as a social cue. The studies have shown the dominance of the right hemisphere in processing faces and social information, resulting in a behavioral advantage in the LVF (Grand et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Nummenmaa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Semrud-Clikeman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eVisual field asymmetry in the processing of gaze cue was initially observed in callosotomy patients. Kingstone et al (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) found that the gaze cueing effect was present only in the LVF in two callosotomy patients. The study used schematic face, which was presented simultaneously on the left and right side of the screen (left and right visual field), with the target appearing either above or below the face. The result offers evidence for the dominance of the right hemisphere in processing gaze cues. Following studies in typical populations have also supported this visual field asymmetry effect. Okada et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) by using paradigm align with prior study (Kingstone et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) found the gaze cueing effect in the LVF was significantly stronger than in the right in the typical populations. Notably, the LVF advantage is specifically responsive to social cues, rather than being a universal characteristic of spatial cue (like arrow) processing, as demonstrated by studies (Ristic et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumerous studies support the dominance of the right hemisphere in processing gaze cues, yet some neuroimaging and behavioral findings raise doubts about that. For instance, Hietanen et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) from gaze cueing paradigm found that the inferior occipital gyrus (IOG) is activated bilaterally when processing gaze cues. Furthermore, in the direction localization task, Materna et al. (2008)observed bilateral activation of pSTS, with comparable activation levels in both hemispheres. Processing of gaze cues in the brain may involve complex coordination between the left and right hemispheres when gaze direction serves as a cue, as it combines spatial and social attributes. In the behavioral level, some studies have also found that left and right visual field don\u0026rsquo;t influence behavioral responses of participants in gaze discrimination and gaze cueing tasks (Wiese et al., 2013; Matsuyoshi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). The processing of gaze cues is a complex cognitive process that involves perceiving gaze faces, judging gaze direction, suppressing gaze direction interference, and orienting to the target. Given this complexity\u0026mdash;and the interplay of spatial, social, and attentional mechanisms involved\u0026mdash;visual field asymmetries in gaze cue processing remain poorly understood and demand systematic exploration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall, previous studies examining the LVF advantage in processing gaze cues have encountered some issues. Firstly, dividing the left and right visual fields by the indirect method of verbal instruction to control fixation may not provide adequate control the fixation locations of participants, because anticipatory saccades may be initiated before stimulus presentation (Bourne, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003ea). Secondly, while previous studies have shown LVF advantage effects of gaze cues in schematic faces, no research has explored these effects in real faces. Previous studies have shown that the type of face image can influence the magnitude of the gaze cueing effect, with schematic faces producing stronger effects compared to real faces (Hietanen \u0026amp; Lepp\u0026auml;nen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). This difference may be due to the simpler physical features of schematic faces and the increased salience of the eyes, which may enhance the processing of gaze direction. In contrast, in reality, the extraction of gaze direction information from the eyes may be influenced by facial information such as the eyebrow bone, the relative position of the pupil to the sclera, and light-dark contrast, as well as head orientation information (Langton et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cem\u003eShinki Ando, 2004\u003c/em\u003e, n.d.; Todorović, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). In reality social interactions, the shifts of attention induced by gaze cues are based on real faces, and it is unclear whether the LVF advantage effect of gaze cues observed for schematic faces can be directly generalized to real faces. Thus, the existence of the LVF advantage in the gaze cueing effect is still controversial and deserves further investigation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on the above, this study utilized real faces and eye-tracking methods to re-examine the LVF advantage gaze cueing effect. Four experiments were conducted to investigate visual field advantage in processing gaze cues. The visual field advantage in processing gaze cues was examined in both real and schematic faces, and the visual field was controlled using the indirect method of verbal instruction and the direct method of eye-tracking. Given the divergent results across previous studies and the lack of clear theoretical consensus on LVF advantage in processing gaze cues, our study advances no specific anticipate hypotheses. Instead, the primary study is to conduct a comprehensive exploration of potential LVF advantages in gaze cueing effects to provide some novel empirical evidence for visual field asymmetry in processing social cue.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Experiment 1","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe SOA in Experiment 1 was set to 200 ms, as previous studies have indicated the gaze cueing effect to be more stable in this condition (Frischen et al., 2007). Although, studies have shown a LVF advantage for processing gaze cues in schematic faces (Okada et al., 2006, 2012), this phenomenon remains entirely unexamined in real faces. Consequently, no a prior hypotheses were formulated regarding the LVF advantage in real faces.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMethod\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipants\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe sample size required for the experiment was estimated using G*Power 3.1.9.2. A design of 2 \u0026times; 2 within-subjects (\u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e = 0.25, \u003cem\u003e\u0026alpha;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.05, \u003cem\u003e1-\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.8) required a minimum of twenty-four participants. Twenty-eight undergraduate students (females = 18, males = 10, mean age = 19.93 years, SD = 1.39) from University were recruited as volunteers to participate in this study, and all participants signed an informed consent form before participating in the experiment. The participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision, and all were right-handed. \u0026nbsp;All participants were naive to the purpose of the research and received monetary compensation after the experiment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStimulus and Apparatus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeven models (males = 3, females = 4) were recruited, One female model only appeared in the practice sessions, while the other six models (males = 3, females = 3) presented in the formal experiment. Each model was photographed with facial images in three gaze directions (looking straight up, looking up 45\u0026deg;, and looking down 45\u0026deg;), each with a neutral expression, for a total of 21 images. The face images were standardized using Adobe Photoshop 2020 (see Fig.1), retaining the model\u0026apos;s face with a uniform grey background, adjusted brightness, consistent contrast, and a dimensional size of 320 pixels wide by 450 pixels high. The stimuli were presented on a 19-inch CRT monitor (1280 \u0026times; 1024 pixels, 60Hz refresh rate). The experiment was set up and controlled by E-Prime2.0 (Psychology Software Tools, 2012; https://pstnet.com /products/e-prime/).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eINSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExperimental Procedure and Design\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA 2 (visual field: LVF, RVF) \u0026times; 2 (congruency: congruent, incongruent) within-subjects design was employed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a quiet room, participants were seated 60 cm from a 19-inch monitor. Participants were instructed to fixate the central cross when it was appeared on the screen during the whole each trial. Before the formal experiment, there were 24 practice trials which were identical to the content of the formal experiment, but the model that had appeared in the practice trials would not appear in the formal experiment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter the practice trials, participants performed the experiment. At the beginning of each trial, a central fixation cross was presented on the screen. After 1000ms, two neutral faces of the same model simultaneously appeared 3.82\u0026deg; from screen center on both sides for 1000ms. Then, one of the faces cued a location by gazing up 45\u0026deg; or gazing down 45\u0026deg;, after 200ms SOA, a target appeared upper or lower on the cued face side. Cue and target remained on the screen until response.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants required to respond for the target location as quickly and accurately as possible. Half of the participants used right index figure to press the keyboard, whereas the other half used left index figure to press. The target appeared above or below the face by pressing \u0026ldquo;\u0026uarr;\u0026rdquo; key or \u0026ldquo;\u0026darr;\u0026rdquo; key. The cues indicated the side of the target (LVF or RVF), but were not predictive (50%) of whether the target was to appear in the upper or lower. Congruency defined by gaze direction and target location. The gaze direction of the face looking directly towards the target is the congruent condition; otherwise, it is the incongruent condition. The response hand was counterbalanced among participants. The experiment consisted of 192 trials in 2 blocks of 96 trials each, with a 2-minute break between each block, lasted for 20 minutes (see Fig.2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eINSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eData analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, all trials in which participants responded incorrectly were excluded (0.48%), and second, the mean RT for correct responses in each experimental condition was calculated, excluding trials in which the mean RT was outside \u0026plusmn; 3 SD (1.55%).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSPSS Statistics for Windows, version 24.0 (IBMCorp., Armonk, N.Y., USA; https: //www.ibm.com/support/pages/downloading-ibm-spss-statistics-24) was used to analyze the data. Mean RT was the dependent variable, and a 2 (visual field: LVF, RVF) \u0026times; 2 (congruency: congruent, incongruent) repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted. Simple effects analysis were performed with Bonferroni correction, and effect sizes were measured using partial eta squared. Simultaneously, the Bayes factor BF01 was calculated using JASP software as an indication of the degree of support for the null hypothesis (H0) in the current data. The value of Bayes factor BF01 ranges from 0 to \u0026infin;, where BF01 = 1 indicates that there is no evidence to support H0, and the larger the value of BF01, the stronger the evidence to support H0 (For example, a Bayes factor value of 1-3 indicates that there is weak evidence to support the null hypothesis, 3-10 indicates that there is moderate evidence to support the null hypothesis, and 10 or more indicates that the evidence to support the null hypothesis is stronger) (Hu et al., 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eResults\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants were include the statistic analysis. A repeated-measures ANOVA with gender as a between-subjects factor revealed no significant main effect (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,26)\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;1.212, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e =\u0026nbsp;0.281) or interaction effect (\u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt;\u0026nbsp;0.1) related to gender. Therefore, gender will not be analyzed in the subsequent analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe ANOVA showed (see Fig.3) a significant main effect of congruency (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,27)\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;15.703, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt;\u0026nbsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;p\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e =\u0026nbsp;0.368, BF01\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;0.015), with mean RT in the congruent condition being significantly faster than those in the incongruent condition. The main effect of visual field was not significant (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,27) = 0.008, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.931, BF01 = 4.055). No significant interaction effect was found for visual field and congruency (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,27) = 0.017, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.898, BF01 = 4.103).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eINSERT FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Experiment 1, we investigated whether the LVF advantage of processing gaze cues exists for real faces. Consistent with previous studies, gaze cueing effect exist for real faces, and gaze direction can trigger reflexive attention shifts. However, in the present study, we did not find a LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Experiment 2","content":"\u003cp\u003eExperiment 1 did not show a LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect. In Experiment 1, we instructed participants to fixate on the central cross by indirect method of fixation control using verbal instructions. It may happen that participants\u0026apos; attention shifted away from the central cross during the experiment, which can lead to changes in the left and right visual fields (Patching \u0026amp; Jordan, 1998), thus preventing us from observing the LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect. Therefore, we employed \u0026nbsp;a direct method that eye-tracking technology in Experiment 2 to strictly controlled participants\u0026apos; gaze positions and ensure that the gaze was always maintained at the central cross.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrevious studies have shown that the cue-target interval (stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA) modulates the gaze cueing effect (GCE) and that shifts of attention produced in different SOA conditions are not characteristically the same, with shifts of attention produced in the short SOA (200-400 ms) being considered reflexive and those in the long SOA (\u0026gt; 600 ms) being considered voluntarily (Friesen \u0026amp; Kingstone, 1998; McKay et al., 2021). Previous evidence suggests that the influence of variables such as emotional faces and mental states on the gaze cueing effect is also moderated by SOA (Teufel et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2021). Studies on the visual field asymmetry of the gaze cueing effect have found that it appears in the LVF at short SOA, whereas it disappears in the left at long SOA (Kingstone et al., 2000; Greene \u0026amp; Zaidel, 2011). However, in Experiment 1, we did not observe a LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect in the short SOA condition. Therefore, in Experiment 2, we set up two SOA conditions (200 ms and 800 ms) to further investigate the possible effects of SOA on the visual field asymmetry of the gaze cueing effect.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMethod\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipants\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwenty-eight (females = 14, mean age = 20.14 years, SD = 1.62) undergraduate volunteers were recruited for Experiment 2, and all participants signed an informed consent form before participating. Participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and were all right-handed. \u0026nbsp;All participants were naive to the purpose of the study and received monetary compensation after the experiment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStimulus and Apparatus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSame material as Experiment 1. Participants\u0026apos; gaze was tracked with the right eye using an eye-tracker (EyeLink 1000, SR Research; 1000Hz sample rate) mounted on a tabletop. Stimuli were displayed on a 19-inch CRT monitor (1280 \u0026times; 1024 pixels, 60Hz refresh rate) of a computer running E-Prime2.0 (Psychology Software Tools, 2012; https://pstnet.com/products/e-prime/). Participants were seated in front of the monitor from 65cm (eye-to-screen distance: 65 cm), with the participant\u0026apos;s head resting on a chin pad.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExperimental Procedure and Design\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA 2 (visual field: LVF, RVF)\u0026nbsp;\u0026times;\u0026nbsp;2 (congruency: congruent, incongruent)\u0026nbsp;\u0026times;\u0026nbsp;2 (SOA: 200ms, 800ms) within-subjects design was employed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a dimly lit, soundproofed room, participants sat in front of a 19-inch monitor with their head resting on a chin pad. Participants were instructed to fixate on the central cross throughout, avoiding head tilt. Thirty-two practice trials were completed, identical to the formal trials but using different model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the beginning of the experiment, participants were required to pass a nine-point calibration. Experiment 2 consisted of two SOA conditions, 200 ms and 800 ms, with the same procedure as in Experiment 1 and a counterbalanced response hands across participants. The experiment consisted of 384 trials, divided into four blocks of 96 trials each, with a 2-minute break between blocks, lasted for 40 minutes (see Fig.4).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore each trial, a drift check was performed with the participant looking at the central cross of the screen and the experimenter pressing the space bar to trigger the check. The maximum deviation from the fixation point allowed by the system was 2\u0026deg;, the standard for eye-tracking systems. The eye movements had to be recorrected if the drift check didn\u0026rsquo;t passed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eINSERT FIGURE\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;ABOUT HERE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eData analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEye movement data of each participant was first analyzed, and a rectangular region of interest of 2 cm\u0026nbsp;\u0026times;\u0026nbsp;2 cm was created with the position of the central cross on the screen. The trials in which the fixation point remained within the region of interest throughout the trial for each participant were considered valid trials. The trials with fixation point outside the region of interest or unmonitored by the eye-tracker were considered invalid. All invalid trials were excluded from the analysis (21%), while valid trials were retained (79%). Incorrect trials (0.23% of the trials) and outliers (defined as trials in which the mean RT was outside\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;3 SD (3.8%)) were then excluded from the formal statistical analysis. RT was the dependent variable and was analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA with the within-subjects factors visual field (left, right), SOA (200 ms, 800 ms), and congruency (congruent, incongruent).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData from Experiment 2 were similarly analyzed using SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 24.0 (IBMCorp., Armonk, N.Y., USA; https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/downloading-ibm-spss-statistics-24) as same as experiment 1. Simple effects analysis were made using a Bonferroni correction, and effect sizes were measured using a biased eta-squared measure. The Bayes factor BF01 was reported.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eResults\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants were include the statistic analysis. A repeated-measures ANOVA with gender as a between-subjects factor revealed no significant main effect (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,26) = 0.129, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e =0.722) or interaction effect (\u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.1) related to gender. Therefore, gender will not be analyzed in the subsequent analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe ANOVA showed (see Fig.5) the main effects of congruency (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,27) = 31.379, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt;\u0026nbsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;p\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.538, BF01 = 4.311\u0026times;10\u003csup\u003e-4\u003c/sup\u003e), with mean RT in the congruent condition being significantly shorter than those in the incongruent condition. And there existed the main effect of SOA (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,27) = 42.626, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001, \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;p\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.612, BF01 = 3.020\u0026times;10\u003csup\u003e-5\u003c/sup\u003e), mean RT in 200ms condition was significantly longer than 800ms. Visual field also had the significant main effect (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,27) = 9.444, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.005, \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;p\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.259, BF01 = 0.397), with mean RT in the LVF was slower than in the RVF. A significant interaction was found between the SOA and congruency (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,27) = 8.007, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.009, \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;p\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.229, BF01 = 0.206), in the condition of congruent, when the SOA was 200ms, the RT was significantly slower than the SOA was 800ms (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001). Furthermore, there were no significant interaction effects, neither between the visual field and congruency (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,27) = 0.027, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.868, BF01 = 4.06) nor between the visual field and SOA (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,27) = 0.776, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.378, BF01 = 4.323 ).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eINSERT FIGURE\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;ABOUT HERE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Experiment 2, we used an eye-tracking device to ensure that the participants\u0026apos; attention remained on the fixation point at the centre of the screen. Still, we did not find the LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect. Based on this, we speculate that the LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect may not exist in real faces. In order to further explore the LVF advantage effect, in the subsequent Experiment 3, we replicated the experiment conducted by Okada et al. (2006) to verify further the LVF advantage effect in schematic faces.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Experiment 3","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn Experiment 1 and Experiment 2, the LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect was not found in real faces. Therefore, in Experiment 3, we replicated the experiment of Okada et al. (2006) and used the same experimental materials and procedure.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMethod\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipants\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eForty undergraduate students participated in Experiment 3, and one participant (female) was excluded from the formal analysis because responed correctly only 2 trials. The number of valid participants was 39 (females = 26, males = 13, mean age = 20.00 years, SD = 1.47 years). All participants signed an informed consent form before participating in the experiment. Participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and were all right-handed. All participants were naive to the purpose of the study and received monetary compensation after the experiment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStimulus and Apparatus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExperiment 3 used schematic faces from the study by Okada et al. (2006) as the experimental materials. The schematic faces consisted of black lines. The faces contained three gaze directions: straight up, 45\u0026deg;\u0026nbsp;up, and 45\u0026deg;\u0026nbsp;down (see Fig.6). The images were presented uniformly with a white background, adjusted brightness, uniform contrast, and a size of 282 pixels wide by 284 pixels high. Stimuli were presented on a 19-inch CRT monitor (1280\u0026nbsp;\u0026times;\u0026nbsp;1024 pixels, 60Hz refresh rate) of a computer running E-Prime2.0 (Psychology Software Tools, 2012; https://pstnet.com/products/e-prime/).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eINSERT FIGURE\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;ABOUT HERE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExperimental Procedure and Design\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe experiment employed a 2 (visual field: LVF, RVF)\u0026nbsp;\u0026times;\u0026nbsp;2 (congruency: congruent, incongruent) within-subjects design, visual field and congruency as the within-subjects variables.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were seated 60 cm from the monitor, and participants were instructed to fixate the central cross on the screen during each trials to avoid head and gaze deviations. The experimental procedure was consistent with previous studies (see Fig.7).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore the start of each trial, a warning alarm (\u0026quot;ding\u0026quot;) was used as a reminder, and then two no pupil schematic faces appeared on the screen. After 675 ms, the gaze direction of the LVF or RVF faces was shifted either upward or downward. The change in gaze direction was randomized. The SOA of 200 ms, faces disappeared and the two target circles presented upper or lower of the schematic faces. Targets remained on the screen until response. 675 ms later, the subsequent trial began. Gaze direction was not predictive of cues (50%). Half of the participants first responded with their right index figure and then with their left index figure, and vice versa for the other half. The targets appeared above or below the face by pressing\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;\u0026uarr;\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;key or\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;\u0026darr;\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;key. The response hand was used as a within-subject variable, and the order of response hands was counterbalanced among participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe total experiment consisted of 160 trials which were divided into two sessions. Participants were required to use right index figure to respond in one session, and the other session was required to change hands for responding. At the start of the session, participants were given 16 practice trials. After the practice trials, participants were asked to complete 80 formal trials with the left or right index finger. The 80 trials were divided into five blocks, and each block contained 16 trials, with a 15s rest period between each block. After one session were completed, participants were asked to change another index finger to respond, and given another 16 practice trials. The order in which the trials were presented in the blocks was randomized.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eINSERT FIGURE\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;ABOUT HERE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eData analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn order to compare the results with those of Okada et al. (2006), the data excluding and subsequent data analysis in this study fully replicated the data analysis methods of Okada et al. (2006). All data in this study were statistically analyzed using SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 24.0 (IBMCorp., Armonk, N.Y., USA; https://www.ibm.com/support/\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003epages/downloading-ibm-spss-statistics-24).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, incorrect response trials (4.9%) were excluded, and the mean RT for correct response trials was calculated. Second, data outside\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;2 SD (standard deviations) of the mean RT were considered outliers and excluded (0.3%). A total of 40 participants participated in this experiment; one was excluded from analysis because of high error rate (＞50%), and 39 participants were included in the statistical analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsistent with previous data analyses, the present study measured the magnitude of the gaze cueing effect using the difference between the mean RT of the incongruent condition and the mean RT of the congruent condition in each experimental condition (Gaze cueing effect size). A 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026times;\u0026nbsp;2\u0026nbsp;\u0026times;\u0026nbsp;2 repeated measures ANOVA was also conducted with gaze cueing effect size as the dependent variable and response hand (left and right), visual field (left and right), and target position (up and down) as within-subjects variables.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo test for differences in RT between visual fields, a 2 (visual field: left, right) \u0026times; 2 (congruency: congruent, incongruent) repeated measures ANOVA was performed with mean RT as the dependent variable. Simple effects analysis were performed with a Bonferroni correction using a partial eta-squared measure of effect size, and the Bayes factor BF01 was also reported.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eResults\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eINSERT\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTABLE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;ABOUT HERE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of the ANOVA for the magnitude of the gaze cueing effect (see Tab.1 and Fig.8) showed that there was no significant difference in the magnitude of the gaze cueing effect on the visual field (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,38) = 0.579, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.451, \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;p\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.015, BF01 = 3.45) and that none of the other main effects or interaction effects (\u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e＞0.1) were significant. The results of the present study are inconsistent with those of Okada et al. (2006), which found a significant main effect of visual field (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,38) = 4.4, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e＜0.05).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eINSERT FIGURE\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;ABOUT HERE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSubsequently, a 2 (visual field: left, right)\u0026nbsp;\u0026times;\u0026nbsp;2 (congruency: congruent, incongruent) ANOVA of mean RT revealed a significant main effect only in congruency (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,38) = 56.57, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e＜0.001, \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;p\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.598, BF01 = 4.50\u0026times;10\u003csup\u003e-7\u003c/sup\u003e). The main effect of the visual field (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,38) = 0.95, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.34, \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;p\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.024, BF01 = 3.53)and the interaction effect of visual field\u0026nbsp;\u0026times;\u0026nbsp;congruency (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,38) = 0.34, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.56, \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;p\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.009, BF01 = 3.63)were not significant (see Fig.9). A significant interaction effect of visual field\u0026nbsp;\u0026times;\u0026nbsp;congruency (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,38) = 4.4, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e＜0.05)was found in a previous study \u0026nbsp;(Okada et al., 2006). In contrast, no significant interaction effect was found in the present study. The mean RT analysis results in the present experiment were consistent with the magnitude of the gaze cueing effect analysis results. We did not reveal a LVF advantage in the gaze cueing effect.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eINSERT FIGURE\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;ABOUT HERE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Experiment 4","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn Experiment 3, we did not find a LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect in the schematic faces, which may have been due to less stringent control of the fixation position. Therefore, we added eye tracker to Experiment 4 to control the gaze positions strictly. We expected to find a LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect in the tightly controlled condition.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMethods\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipants\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExperiment 4 recruited 40 undergraduate volunteers (females = 26, males = 14, mean age = 19.83 years, SD = 1.36). All participants signed an informed consent form before participating in the experiment. Participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and were all right-handed. All participants were naive to the purpose of the study and received monetary compensation at the end of the experiment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStimulus and Apparatus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsistent with the experimental material of Experiment 3. The experiment was programmed using E-prime 2.0 (Psychology Software Tools, 2012; https://pstnet.com/products/e-prime/). Participants\u0026apos; right-eyed vision was tracked using an eye-tracking device (EyeLink 1000, SR Research; 1000Hz sample rate) fixed on a tabletop. Material images were displayed on a 19-inch CRT monitor (1280\u0026times;1024 pixels, 60Hz refresh rate). During experiment, the participant was seated in front of the monitor (eye-to-screen distance: 65 cm), and the participant\u0026apos;s head was resting on a chin pad.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExperimental Procedure and Design\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe experimental procedure and design was the same as in Experiment 3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the start of the experiment, all participants passed a nine-point calibration. Before each trial, a drift check was performed in which the participant was asked to fixate the central cross on the screen, and then the experimenter pressed the space bar. During the drift check, the maximum allowed deviation of the fixation point from the circle position was set to the default value of 2\u0026deg; for the eye tracking system. After the drift check was completed, the subsequent trial was displayed, and if the participant was unable to complete the drift check, the eye tracking calibration was repeated.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eData analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Experiment 4, SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 24.0 (IBMCorp., Armonk, N.Y., USA; https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/downloading-ibm-spss-statistics-24) was also used for data analysis. The eye movement data processing in Experiment 4 was the same as in Experiment 2. The invalid trials were excluded from the analysis (14.8%), while the valid trials (85.2%) were retained. Data exclusion criteria were identical to Experiment 3, excluding trials with incorrect responses (1.16%) and trials outside \u0026plusmn; 2 SD of the mean correct RT (2.29%). Experiment 4 had 40 participants; 2 were excluded from subsequent analyses due to fewer than 80 valid trials, and 38 were included in the statistical analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExperiment 4 and Experiment 3 were statistically analyzed using the same methods and reporting the same metrics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eResults\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eINSERT\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTABLE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eABOUT HERE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of the ANOVA on the magnitude of gaze cueing effect (see Tab.2 and Fig.10) showed that the magnitude of gaze cueing effect was not significantly different in the visual field (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,37) = 0.173, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.68, \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;p\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= 0.005, BF01 = 5.45 ) and did not reveal any significant main or interaction effects (\u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e＞0.1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eINSERT FIGURE\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;ABOUT HERE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSubsequently, a 2 (visual field: left, right) \u0026times; 2 (congruency: congruent, incongruent) ANOVA of mean RT revealed a significant main effect of congruency only (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,37) = 66.87, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e＜0.001, \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;p\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.644, BF01 = 6.23\u0026times;10\u003csup\u003e-8\u003c/sup\u003e), a main effect of the visual field (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,37) = 0.039, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.844, \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;p\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.001, BF01 = 4.79) and the interaction effect of visual field \u0026times; congruency (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,37) = 0.035, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.852, \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;p\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.001, BF01 = 4.20) were not significant (see Fig.11). The results for mean RT were consistent with the gaze cueing effect size results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eINSERT FIGURE\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;ABOUT HERE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"General Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn a series of four experiments using adapted Posner\u0026apos;s cueing paradigm, the study tested for LVF advantage in the gaze cueing effect. Real faces and schematic faces were used as experimental materials, and fixation location of participants was controlled by using indirect or direct method of fixation control. The results showed a classical gaze cueing effect for both face types, but there was no observed LVF advantage in the gaze cueing effect. Gaze cues in the LVF induced similar magnitudes of the gaze cueing effect as those in the RVF.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAttention shifts induced by gaze direction were found in all four experiments of the present study, suggesting that observers use the gaze direction of others as a cue to adjust their attention toward where others are looking. This finding is consistent with previous findings that gaze cues induce attentional shifts in observers, whether in fundamental social interactions or real pictorial material, even when gaze direction does not predict target location\u0026nbsp;(Downing et al., 2004; Lachat et al., 2012). Furthermore, the gaze cueing effect is not affected by the type of face image, and it has been observed for both real and schematic faces\u0026nbsp;(Friesen \u0026amp; Kingstone, 1998; Holmes et al., 2010). This suggests that the gaze cueing effect is reliable and can occur in various situations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNone of the four experiments in the present study revealed the presence of a LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect, which is not consistent with the findings of \u0026nbsp;(Okada et al., 2006). We consider that there exist three potential explanations for this. First, different processing stages for gaze cues involve different cognitive processing. Face recognition studies have found that different cognitive processing stages may be involved during the task. There may be differences in the hemispheres involved in different processing stages, thus involving changes in the dominant hemisphere at different processing stages and adjustments and alterations in the processing strategy for the information (Turkewitz \u0026amp; Ross, 1983; Corballis \u0026amp; Gratton, 2003). In the present study, the gaze cueing task similarly involves different processing stages, and individuals make strategic adjustments and changes in the dominant hemisphere during the task, which may make the behavioral outcomes exhibited by individuals not significantly different in the visual field. Second, there may be inter-individual differences in the processing of gaze cues, which may result in the visual field asymmetry of gaze cueing effect being canceled out across individuals. Previous neuroimaging studies have found that the activation level of the right hemisphere is higher than the left hemisphere during face processing, and thus, the right hemisphere is thought to be the dominant hemisphere for face processing (Yovel et al., 2003; Pelphrey \u0026amp; Carter, 2008). However, Thome et al. (2022) found significant inter-individual differences in cerebral hemispheric lateralization in a study of face perception in real people, with only about 50% of participants showing right hemisphere dominance, while the other portion of participants showed bilateral or left hemisphere dominance. A recent study using the Diffusion Decision Model (DDM) to analyze the attentional orienting and information processing mechanisms behind the gaze cue effect found inter-individual differences in the magnitude of the gaze cueing effect (Alister et al., 2024). Finally, in real life and authentic social interactions, the social stimuli that individuals need to process are more complex. Processing complex social stimuli may require collecting more comprehensive information, which may be accompanied by visual attention (changes in the direction of eye gaze, limb, and head-turning) (Skarratt et al., 2012). During the process of evolution, these demands may prompt us not to dominantly process social cues in a certain unilateral field of view. A study presented soccer players with the same soccer-playing scene in their bilateral visual fields and asked them to freely observe the situation and complete a feature recognition task (identifying the direction in which the players were running on the screen) and a perception task (perception of the number of players on the screen), and found that there was no significant difference in judgmental accuracy across visual fields in both tasks (Klatt et al., 2020). At the same time, it has also been found that when task-related stimuli are more complex, hemispheric lateralization effects disappear (Jonides, 1979; Schwartz \u0026amp; Kirsner, 1982; Schach et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present study found no visual field asymmetry in the processing of gaze cues, which is consistent with the findings of some previous studies of visual lateralization patterns. In letter categorization experiments, the right visual field dominance that was initially demonstrated fades as the difficulty of the letter categorization experiment increases\u0026nbsp;(Jonides, 1979). Compared to the previous Posner cueing paradigm, the task in the present study was more difficult. The participants are required to use their peripheral vision to capture the gaze cue information in the left and right visual fields and then localize the target that appears subsequently. The complex task may result from cooperation involving both hemispheres rather than the dominance of one hemisphere. In addition, previous studies have used cross-sectional studies to investigate the lateralization of visual attention in three age groups (9, 13, and 18 years), and their results did not reveal the lateralization of visual attention\u0026nbsp;(Shapiro \u0026amp; Hynd, 1985). Meanwhile, in the study by Okada et al. (2008), they also found no LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect in a healthy population. These results may suggest that the visual field asymmetry of gaze cue processing may not be a stable phenomenon.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompared with the original experiment, although the experimental materials and procedures remained largely consistent with that, some differences may also have contributed to our failure to successfully replicate the LVF advantage in the gaze cueing effect in the current experiment. First, in experiment designed by Okada et al. (2006), the range of participants\u0026apos; mean RT for the congruent and incongruent conditions in the left and right visual fields is from 300 ms to 325 ms. In contrast, participants\u0026apos; mean RT in the present study ranged from 430 ms to 470 ms. Participants in the present study, RT were slower by close to 100 ms, which may be attributed to the fact that they underwent cognitive strategic adjustments and were more cautious in their judgments to perform the task better. For example, they may have adopted a more holistic and balanced approach to processing the information in the left and right visual fields, resulting in a non-significant difference in RT between the left and right visual fields and the disappearance of the LVF advantage effect. Second, the original experiment screened participants for dominant handing through the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory\u0026nbsp;(Oldfield, 2013), in which participants were screened for right-handedness by the scale. The Edinburgh Handedness Inventory contains 10 activities, and participants are required to self-assess the frequency of using their left or right hand in these 10 activities. However, our experiment did not use scale to screen participants\u0026rsquo; dominant hand, and we only judged whether participants were right-handed or not by the self reports, which may exhibit discrepancies with actual conditions, and handedness could potentially influence lateralization patterns. In addition to this, a recent study found that players of action video games (e.g., Temple Run, Crossfire, etc.) have diminished lateralization of attentional orienting and have comparable behavioral performance in response to stimuli in the left and right visual fields\u0026nbsp;(Li et al., 2019). Data from the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) reported that there are as many as 552 million video game users in China as of July 2022. A 2018 Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) survey on Chinese college students found that close to 50% of female students said they play video games. Video games may not have been popular among college students in 2006, while the percentage of female college students playing video games may be lower. The participants in this study may include a significant portion of video game players. The lateralization of attentional orienting may be weaker in this participants, so our study did not find the same results as the study of Okada et al. (2006).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn four experiments, we did not observe a LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect, which does not rule out the possibility of a biased lateralization tendency for the processing of direction and the attentional shifts induced by the gaze cue. Because the four experiments in this study were behavioral, we did not separate the processing stages of gaze cues, and we need to investigate further whether there is a biased processing advantage in different processing stages. In the future, we can try to incorporate brain imaging techniques to explore whether there is a neural bias in processing different stages of gaze cues. Second, because a recent study found that video game players have a reduced lateralization advantage in attentional orienting, the present study did not investigate the participants\u0026apos; video game playing in advance. We cannot rule out the possibility that the influence of video games may have led to the reduction or disappearance of the lateralization advantage of the participants in the present study in the processing of gaze cues. Future studies may also include this factor in the study of visual field lateralization in the processing of gaze cues.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe gaze cueing effect was observed for both real and schematic faces, but it was not more pronounced in the LVF than in the RVF for either type of face. These findings are the first to show a lack of LVF advantage in gaze cueing effect for both real and schematic faces. While our results do not definitively rule out the presence of this phenomenon, they suggest that the question of a visual field asymmetry for gaze cues warrants further investigation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study complied with the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by the Ethics Committee of University on March 30, 2022(Approval No:220330) after which the data collection process commenced until September 23, 2024.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed Consent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent from all participants in our study was obtained during the period from April 1, 2022, to September 23, 2024, before to them participate in the experiments. Also each model signed a portrait rights license agreement giving us permission to use their picture as experimental material and to publish them.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZ.H. and J.Y. conceived and designed the experiments. L.L. , J.Y. , H.L. and J.Y. performed the data acquisition and analyzed the data. Z.H. and L.L. interpreted the data and drafted the manuscript. All authors revised and approved the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe would like to express our heartfelt thanks to the participants who came to our experiment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSequence data that support the findings of this study have been deposited in the Mendeley Data with the DOI of 10.17632/ktn9dwnjwz.1. The materials during the current study available from the corresponding author.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlister, M., McKay, K. T., Sewell, D. K., \u0026amp; Evans, N. J. (2024). Uncovering the cognitive mechanisms underlying the gaze cueing effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77 (4), 803\u0026ndash;827. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231181238\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlain, S. D., Taylor, S. F., Rutherford, S. E., Lasagna, C. A., Yao, B., Angstadt, M., Green, M. F., Johnson, T. D., Peltier, S., Diwadkar, V. A., \u0026amp; Tso, I. F. (2023). Neurobehavioral indices of gaze perception are associated with social cognition across schizophrenia patients and healthy controls. Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science, 132 (6), 733\u0026ndash;748. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000846\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBourne, V. J. (2006). The divided visual field paradigm: Methodological considerations. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 11 (4), 373\u0026ndash;393. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500600633982\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, Z., McCrackin, S. D., Morgan, A., \u0026amp; Itier, R. J. (2021). The Gaze Cueing Effect and Its Enhancement by Facial Expressions Are Impacted by Task Demands: Direct Comparison of Target Localization and Discrimination Tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 618606. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.618606\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoelho, E., George, N., Conty, L., Hugueville, L., \u0026amp; Tijus, C. (2006). Searching for asymmetries in the detection of gaze contact versus averted gaze under different head views: A behavioural study. Spatial Vision, 19 (6), 529\u0026ndash;545. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856806779194026\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorballis, P. M., \u0026amp; Gratton, G. (2003). Independent control of processing strategies for different locations in the visual field. Biological Psychology, 64 (1\u0026ndash;2), 191\u0026ndash;209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511 (03)00109-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDowning, P., Dodds, C., \u0026amp; Bray, D. (2004). Why does the gaze of others direct visual attention? Visual Cognition, 11 (1), 71\u0026ndash;79. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280344000220\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEngell, A. D., \u0026amp; Haxby, J. V. (2007). Facial expression and gaze-direction in human superior temporal sulcus. Neuropsychologia, 45 (14), 3234\u0026ndash;3241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.06.022\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFlusberg, S. J., Shapiro, D., Collister, K. B., \u0026amp; Thibodeau, P. H. (2023). Things are looking up: Vertical eye gaze in the environment affects perceptions of emotional valence in sad faces. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76 (7), 1641\u0026ndash;1657. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218221135429\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFriesen, C. K., \u0026amp; Kingstone, A. (1998). The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin \u0026amp; Review, 5 (3), 490\u0026ndash;495. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208827\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrischen, A., Bayliss, A. P., \u0026amp; Tipper, S. P. (2007). Gaze Cueing of Attention. Psychological Bulletin, 133 (4), 694\u0026ndash;724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.694\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGao, W., Lin, Y., Shen, J., Han, J., Song, X., Lu, Y., Zhan, H., Li, Q., Ge, H., Lin, Z., Shi, W., Drugowitsch, J., Tang, H., \u0026amp; Chen, X. (2023). Diverse effects of gaze direction on heading perception in humans. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhac541\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrand, R. L., Mondloch, C. J., Maurer, D., \u0026amp; Brent, H. P. (2003). Expert face processing requires visual input to the right hemisphere during infancy. Nature Neuroscience, 6 (10), 1108\u0026ndash;1112. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1121\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreene, D. J., \u0026amp; Zaidel, E. (2011). Hemispheric differences in attentional orienting by social cues. Neuropsychologia, 49 (1), 61\u0026ndash;68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.11.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHietanen, J. K., \u0026amp; Lepp\u0026auml;nen, J. M. (2003). Does Facial Expression Affect Attention Orienting by Gaze Direction Cues? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29 (6), 1228\u0026ndash;1243. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.6.1228\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHietanen, J. K., Nummenmaa, L., Nyman, M. J., Parkkola, R., \u0026amp; H\u0026auml;m\u0026auml;l\u0026auml;inen, H. (2006). Automatic attention orienting by social and symbolic cues activates different neural networks: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 33 (1), 406\u0026ndash;413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.06.048\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHolmes, A., Mogg, K., Garcia, L. M., \u0026amp; Bradley, B. P. (2010). Neural activity associated with attention orienting triggered by gaze cues: A study of lateralized ERPs. Social Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470910903422819\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJonides, J. (1979). Left and Right Visual Field Superiority for Letter Classification. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31 (3), 423\u0026ndash;439. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640747908400737\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKingstone, A., Friesen, C. K., \u0026amp; Gazzaniga, M. S. (2000). Reflexive Joint Attention Depends on Lateralized Cortical Connections. Psychological Science, 11 (2), 159\u0026ndash;166. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00232\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKlatt, S., Ford, P. R., \u0026amp; Smeeton, N. J. (2020). Attentional and perceptual asymmetries in an immersive decision-making task. Attention, Perception, \u0026amp; Psychophysics, 82 (4), 1847\u0026ndash;1857. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01935-w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoochaki, F., \u0026amp; Najafizadeh, L. (2021). A Data-Driven Framework for Intention Prediction via Eye Movement With Applications to Assistive Systems. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 29, 974\u0026ndash;984. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2021.3083815\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLachat, F., Conty, L., Hugueville, L., \u0026amp; George, N. (2012). Gaze Cueing Effect in a Face-to-Face Situation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36 (3), 177\u0026ndash;190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-012-0133-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLangton, S. R. H., Watt, R. J., \u0026amp; Bruce, V. (2000). Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4 (2), 50\u0026ndash;59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613 (99)01436-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, Y., Jin, X., Wang, Y., \u0026amp; Niu, D. (2019). Reduced Lateralization of Attention in Action Video Game Players. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1631. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01631\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaterna, S., Dicke, P. W., \u0026amp; Thier, P. (n.d.). Dissociable Roles of the Superior Temporal Sulcus and the Intraparietal Sulcus in Joint Attention: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study. 20 (1).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMatsuyoshi, D., Kuraguchi, K., Ashida, H., \u0026amp; Watanabe, K. (2014). Interhemispheric differences in the perception of human gaze direction. 2014 6th International Conference on Knowledge and Smart Technology (KST), 116\u0026ndash;118. https://doi.org/10.1109/KST.2014.6775406\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcKay, K. T., Grainger, S. A., Coundouris, S. P., Skorich, D. P., Phillips, L. H., \u0026amp; Henry, J. D. (2021). Visual attentional orienting by eye gaze: A meta-analytic review of the gaze-cueing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 147 (12), 1269\u0026ndash;1289. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000353\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNummenmaa, L., Passamonti, L., Rowe, J., Engell, A. D., \u0026amp; Calder, A. J. (2010). Connectivity Analysis Reveals a Cortical Network for Eye Gaze Perception. Cerebral Cortex, 20 (8), 1780\u0026ndash;1787. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp244\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOkada, T., Sato, W., Kubota, Y., Toichi, M., \u0026amp; Murai, T. (2012). Right hemispheric dominance and interhemispheric cooperation in gaze‐triggered reflexive shift of attention. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 66 (2), 97\u0026ndash;104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1819.2011.02302.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOkada, T., Sato, W., Kubota, Y., Usui, K., Inoue, Y., Murai, T., Hayashi, T., \u0026amp; Toichi, M. (2008). Involvement of medial temporal structures in reflexive attentional shift by gaze. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3 (1), 80\u0026ndash;88. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsm027\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOkada, T., Sato, W., \u0026amp; Toichi, M. (2006). Right hemispheric dominance in gaze-triggered reflexive shift of attention in humans. Brain and Cognition, 62 (2), 128\u0026ndash;133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2006.04.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOldfield, R. C. (2013). Edinburgh Handedness Inventory [Dataset]. https://doi.org/10.1037/t23111-000\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePalanica, A., \u0026amp; Itier, R. J. (2011). Searching for a perceived gaze direction using eye tracking. Journal of Vision, 11 (2), 19\u0026ndash;19. https://doi.org/10.1167/11.2.19\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePatching, G. R., \u0026amp; Jordan, T. R. (1998). Increasing the benefits of eye-tracking devices in divided visual field studies of cerebral asymmetry. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, \u0026amp; Computers, 30 (4), 643\u0026ndash;650. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209482\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePelphrey, K. A., \u0026amp; Carter, E. J. (2008). Charting the typical and atypical development of the social brain. Development and Psychopathology, 20 (4), 1081\u0026ndash;1102. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579408000515\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePerception of Gaze Direction Based on Luminance Ratio\u0026mdash;Shinki Ando, 2004. (n.d.). Retrieved March 23, 2025, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1068/p5297\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRicciardelli, P. (2002). A left visual field advantage in perception of gaze direction. Neuropsychologia, 40 (7), 769\u0026ndash;777. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932 (01)00190-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRistic, J., Friesen, C. K., \u0026amp; Kingstone, A. (2002). Are eyes special? It depends on how you look at it. Psychonomic Bulletin \u0026amp; Review, 9 (3), 507\u0026ndash;513. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196306\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaitovitch, A., Popa, T., Lemaitre, H., Rechtman, E., Lamy, J.-C., Gr\u0026eacute;vent, D., Calmon, R., Meunier, S., Brunelle, F., Samson, Y., Boddaert, N., \u0026amp; Zilbovicius, M. (2016). Tuning Eye-Gaze Perception by Transitory STS Inhibition. Cerebral Cortex, 26 (6), 2823\u0026ndash;2831. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw045\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchach, S., Braun, D. A., \u0026amp; Lindner, A. (2023). Cross-hemispheric recruitment during action planning with increasing task demand. Scientific Reports, 13 (1), 15375. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-41926-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchwartz, S., \u0026amp; Kirsner, K. (1982). Laterality Effects in Visual Information Processing: Hemispheric Specialisation or the Orienting of Attention? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 34 (1), 61\u0026ndash;77. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748208400858\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSemrud-Clikeman, M., Goldenring Fine, J., \u0026amp; Zhu, D. C. (2011). The Role of the Right Hemisphere for Processing of Social Interactions in Normal Adults Using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Neuropsychobiology, 64 (1), 47\u0026ndash;51. https://doi.org/10.1159/000325075\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShapiro, M. S., \u0026amp; Hynd, G. W. (1985). The development of functional lateralization in visual hemifield attention. Developmental Neuropsychology, 1 (1), 67\u0026ndash;80. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565648509540299\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSkarratt, P. A., Cole, G. G., \u0026amp; Kuhn, G. (2012). Visual cognition during real social interaction. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00196\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTeufel, C., Alexis, D. M., Clayton, N. S., \u0026amp; Davis, G. (2010). Mental-state attribution drives rapid, reflexive gaze following. Attention, Perception, \u0026amp; Psychophysics, 72 (3), 695\u0026ndash;705. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.3.695\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe importance of context information for the spatial specificity of gaze cueing | Attention, Perception, \u0026amp; Psychophysics. (n.d.). Retrieved June 13, 2025, from https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-013-0444-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThome, I., Garc\u0026iacute;a Alanis, J. C., Volk, J., Vogelbacher, C., Steinstr\u0026auml;ter, O., \u0026amp; Jansen, A. (2022). Let\u0026rsquo;s face it: The lateralization of the face perception network as measured with fMRI is not clearly right dominant. NeuroImage, 263, 119587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119587\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTodorović, D. (2006). Geometrical basis of perception of gaze direction. Vision Research, 46 (21), 3549\u0026ndash;3562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2006.04.011\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTurkewitz, G., \u0026amp; Ross, P. (1983). Changes in Visual Field Advantage for Facial Recognition: The Development of a General Processing Strategy. Cortex, 19 (2), 179\u0026ndash;185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452 (83)80013-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, N., Xu, S., Zhang, S., Luo, Y., \u0026amp; Geng, H. (2019). ERP evidence on how gaze convergence affects social attention. Scientific Reports, 9 (1), 7586. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44058-w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYokoyama, T., \u0026amp; Takeda, Y. (2019). Gaze Cuing Effects in Peripheral Vision. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 708. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00708\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYovel, G., Levy, J., Grabowecky, M., \u0026amp; Paller, K. A. (2003). Neural Correlates of the Left-Visual-Field Superiority in Face Perception Appear at Multiple Stages of Face Processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15 (3), 462\u0026ndash;474. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892903321593162\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, Y., Hu, Q., Lai, X., Hu, Z., \u0026amp; Gao, S. (2021). Fear-specific leftward bias in gaze direction judgment. Scientific Reports, 11 (1), 17574. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97039-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHU Chuan-Peng, KONG Xiang-Zhen, Eric-Jan WAGENMAKERS, Alexander LY, PENG Kaiping. (2018). The Bayes factor and its implementation in JASP: A practical primer. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(6), 951-965.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1.The mean RT for respond hand、visual field、target location and GCE (\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eM \u0026plusmn; SD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e，\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ems)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"center\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"99%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLefthand\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRighthand\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUp\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDown\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUp\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDown\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLVF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 3px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCongruent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e436.89 \u0026plusmn; 77.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e448.99 \u0026plusmn; 84.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e443.26 \u0026plusmn; 92.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e443.53 \u0026plusmn; 87.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncongruent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e461.62 \u0026plusmn; 72.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e483.89 \u0026plusmn; 74.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e461.06 \u0026plusmn; 81.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e469.83 \u0026plusmn; 91.73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 3px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGCE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.72 \u0026plusmn; 48.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.90 \u0026plusmn; 57.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.80 \u0026plusmn; 44.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.30 \u0026plusmn; 53.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRVF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 3px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCongruent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e437.62 \u0026plusmn; 81.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e438.39 \u0026plusmn; 87.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e435.28 \u0026plusmn; 85.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e438.44 \u0026plusmn; 80.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncongruent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e472.68 \u0026plusmn; 81.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e481.71 \u0026plusmn; 86.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e456.61 \u0026plusmn; 92.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e463.57 \u0026plusmn; 86.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 3px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGCE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.06 \u0026plusmn; 40.58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43.32 \u0026plusmn; 63.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.33 \u0026plusmn; 47.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.13 \u0026plusmn; 39.70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2.The mean RT for respond hand、visual field、target location and GCE (\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eM \u0026plusmn; SD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e，\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ems)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"center\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"99%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLefthand\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRighthand\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUp\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDown\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUp\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDown\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLVF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 3px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCongruent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e468.69 \u0026plusmn; 75.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e477.66 \u0026plusmn; 73.98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e463.98 \u0026plusmn; 84.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e467.25 \u0026plusmn; 81.63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncongruent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e495.91 \u0026plusmn; 76.73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e499.56 \u0026plusmn; 79.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e491.26 \u0026plusmn; 80.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e503.30 \u0026plusmn; 89.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 3px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGCE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.23 \u0026plusmn; 34.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.90 \u0026plusmn; 34.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.28 \u0026plusmn; 47.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.05 \u0026plusmn; 39.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRVF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 3px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCongruent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e469.27 \u0026plusmn; 69.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e468.09 \u0026plusmn; 68.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e462.57 \u0026plusmn; 82.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e476.51 \u0026plusmn; 81.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncongruent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e501.84 \u0026plusmn; 75.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e490.17 \u0026plusmn; 70.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e494.15 \u0026plusmn; 81.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e507.15 \u0026plusmn; 94.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 3px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGCE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.58 \u0026plusmn; 41.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.08 \u0026plusmn; 48.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.58 \u0026plusmn; 101.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30.64 \u0026plusmn; 35.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"gaze cueing effect, shift of attention, visual field asymmetries, real faces, eye tracking","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7237829/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7237829/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe gaze cueing effect, which refers to the phenomenon where the gaze direction of others induces shifts of attention, has been a focal point of debate concerning visual field asymmetries in processing social cues. Previous studies using schematic faces have suggested a left visual field (LVF) advantage in processing gaze cues when participants were instructed to fixate on the screen center. This advantage was attributed to the right hemisphere dominance in processing social cues. However, the reliance on verbal instructions for fixation control has been criticized for potential inaccuracies in maintaining precise central fixation, and the use of schematic faces may not fully represent real-face processing. This study aimed to fully re-examining the existence of the LVF advantage in the gaze cueing effect. Four experiments were conducted employing two types of methods to ensure accurate central fixation while participants viewed both real and schematic faces. Contrary to previous findings, the LVF advantage in the gaze cueing effect was not observed across all experiments, indicating a lack of support for the hypothesized visual field asymmetry. These results suggest that the visual field asymmetries in gaze-triggered attention shifts remain ambiguous and necessitate further systematic investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Re-examining left visual field advantage in gaze cueing effect","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-25 21:30:33","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7237829/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"3addeb94-c8eb-4355-842f-02f02b41441c","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 25th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":53492999,"name":"Biological sciences/Neuroscience"},{"id":53493000,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":53493001,"name":"Social science/Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-03T16:25:40+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-25 21:30:33","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7237829","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7237829","identity":"rs-7237829","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}