ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B

心理学报 ›› 2014, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (9): 1281-1288.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.01281

• 论文 • 上一篇    下一篇


陈艾睿1; 董波2; 方颖1; 于长宇1; 张明3;   

  1. (1东北师范大学心理学院, 长春 130024) (2中国科学院心理研究所, 北京 100101) (3苏州大学教育学院心理学系, 苏州 215123)
  • 收稿日期:2013-12-02 出版日期:2014-09-25 发布日期:2014-09-25
  • 通讯作者: 张明, E-mail:
  • 基金资助:


The Role of Cue Type in the Subliminal Gaze-cueing Effect

CHEN Airui1; DONG Bo2; FANG Ying1; YU Changyu1; ZHANG Ming3   

  1. (1 School of Psychology, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China) (2 Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China) (3 Department of Psychology, School of Education, Soochow University, Suzhou 215123, China)
  • Received:2013-12-02 Published:2014-09-25 Online:2014-09-25
  • Contact: ZHANG Ming, E-mail:


实验结合连续闪烁抑制范式和线索化范式, 通过操纵直视面孔和斜视面孔的呈现方式, 考察了动静线索类型对注视线索效应的影响。结果表明:两种线索在阈上条件都能产生注视线索效应, 且动态线索诱发的效应更大; 无意识条件下有且仅有动态注视线索能诱发注视线索效应。这说明眼睛运动是产生阈下注视线索效应的必要条件; 眼睛运动会增强阈上注视线索效应, 静态注视线索效应依赖于意识。研究结果支持了社会知觉与心理理论交互模型。

关键词: 注视线索效应, 连续闪烁抑制范式, 线索类型


The fact that attention can be shifted to locations gazed by the others is called gaze following and measured by the gaze-cueing effect (GCE). Whether or not GCE could function unconsciously remains an open question. In the present study, we investigate the effect of gaze cue type (dynamic vs. static) on GCE at either the subliminal level or the supraliminal level. Continuous flash suppression and spatial cuing paradigm were used in the present study. A directed gaze display was followed by an averted gaze display in the dynamic condition. By contrast, only the averted gaze display appeared in the static condition. Thus, the dynamic gaze cue involved eyes’ movement, while the static gaze cue did not. Participants had to conduct four tasks during the experiment. In the first task, participants were instructed to indicate the direction of the gaze cue (either dynamic or static). In each trial, the gaze cue was randomly presented to one single eye, while the masking stimulus (dynamic Mondrian pattern) was presented to the other eye. Thus, the dominant and non-dominant eye of each participant could be learned. In the following two tasks, the gaze cue was presented to the non-dominant eye, while the masking was presented to the dominant eye. In the second task, a visual target was presented on either the cued (valid trial) or the un-cued (invalid trial) location following the gaze cue display. Participants were asked to indicate the target position as accurately and quickly as possible. In the third task, participants had to (1) detect whether the gaze cue had been presented and (2) indicate the direction of the certain cue (either dynamic or static) when it appeared. The last task was the same as the second task except that the masking stimulus was removed. The main results showed that (1) eyes’ movement influenced GCE at the subliminal level. RTs were shorter in the valid trials than in the invalid trials with dynamic cues, suggesting a classical GCE. However, GCE disappeared with static cues. (2) Furthermore, GCE was enhanced when the cue was dynamic at the supraliminal level. Thus, GCE could only be found with the dynamic cue at the subliminal level, though it could be observed with both the dynamic and static cues at the supraliminal level. This suggested that eye movement plays a key role in the subliminal gaze following and attention shift could not be triggered by the static gaze cue without awareness. The present findings provided behavioral evidence for the interactive model of social perception and the theory of mind.

Key words: gaze-cueing effect, continuous flash suppression, cue type