Individual differences in human gaze behavior generalize from faces to objects.

Individuals differ in where they fixate on a face, with some looking closer to the eyes while others prefer the mouth region. These individual biases are highly robust, generalize from the lab to the outside world, and have been associated with social cognition and associated disorders. However, it is unclear, whether these biases are specific to faces or influenced by domain-general mechanisms of vision. Here, we juxtaposed these hypotheses by testing whether individual face fixation biases generalize to inanimate objects. We analyzed >1.8 million fixations toward faces and objects in complex natural scenes from 405 participants tested in multiple labs. Consistent interindividual differences in fixation positions were highly inter-correlated across faces and objects in all samples. Observers who fixated closer to the eye region also fixated higher on inanimate objects and vice versa. Furthermore, the inter-individual spread of fixation positions scaled with target size in precisely the same, non-linear manner for faces and objects. These findings contradict a purely domain-specific account of individual face gaze. Instead, they suggest significant domain-general contributions to the individual way we look at faces, a finding with potential relevance for basic vision, face perception, social cognition, and associated clinical conditions.

Individual differences in face salience and rapid face saccades.

Humans saccade to faces in their periphery faster than to other types of objects. Previous research has highlighted the potential importance of the upper face region in this phenomenon, but it remains unclear whether this is driven by the eye region. Similarly, it remains unclear whether such rapid saccades are exclusive to faces or generalize to other semantically salient stimuli. Furthermore, it is unknown whether individuals differ in their face-specific saccadic reaction times and, if so, whether such differences could be linked to differences in face fixations during free viewing. To explore these open questions, we invited 77 participants to perform a saccadic choice task in which we contrasted faces as well as other salient objects, particularly isolated face features and text, with cars. Additionally, participants freely viewed 700 images of complex natural scenes in a separate session, which allowed us to determine the individual proportion of first fixations falling on faces. For the saccadic choice task, we found advantages for all categories of interest over cars. However, this effect was most pronounced for images of full faces. Full faces also elicited faster saccades compared with eyes, showing that isolated eye regions are not sufficient to elicit face-like responses. Additionally, we found consistent individual differences in saccadic reaction times toward faces that weakly correlated with face salience during free viewing. Our results suggest a link between semantic salience and rapid detection, but underscore the unique status of faces. Further research is needed to resolve the mechanisms underlying rapid face saccades.

Quick, eyes! Isolated upper face regions but not artificial features elicit rapid saccades.

Human faces elicit faster saccades than objects or animals, resonating with the great importance of faces for our species. The underlying mechanisms are largely unclear. Here, we test two hypotheses based on previous findings. First, ultra-rapid saccades toward faces may not depend on the presence of the whole face, but the upper face region containing the eye region. Second, ultra-rapid saccades toward faces (and possibly face parts) may emerge from our extensive experience with this stimulus and thus extend to glasses and masks - artificial features frequently encountered as part of a face. To test these hypotheses, we asked 43 participants to complete a saccadic choice task, which contrasted images of whole, upper and lower faces, face masks, and glasses with car images. The resulting data confirmed ultra-rapid saccades for isolated upper face regions, but not for artificial facial features.

Individual differences in looking at persons in scenes.

Individuals freely viewing complex scenes vary in their fixation behavior. The most prominent and reliable dimension of such individual differences is the tendency to fixate faces. However, much less is known about how observers distribute fixations across other body parts of persons in scenes and how individuals may vary in this regard. Here, we aimed to close this gap. We expanded a popular annotated stimulus set (Xu, Jiang, Wang, Kankanhalli, & Zhao, 2014) with 6,365 hand-delineated pixel masks for the body parts of 1,136 persons embedded in 700 complex scenes, which we publish with this article (https://osf.io/ynujz/). This resource allowed us to analyze the person-directed fixations of 103 participants freely viewing these scenes. We found large and reliable individual differences in the distribution of fixations across person features. Individual fixation tendencies formed two anticorrelated clusters, one for the eyes, head, and the inner face and one for body features (torsi, arms, legs, and hands). Interestingly, the tendency to fixate mouths was independent of the face cluster. Finally, our results show that observers who tend to avoid person fixations in general, particularly do so for the face region. These findings underscore the role of individual differences in fixation behavior and reveal underlying dimensions. They are further in line with a recently proposed push-pull relationship between cortical tuning for faces and bodies. They may also aid the comparison of special populations to general variation.

Characteristic fixation biases in Super-Recognizers.

Neurotypical observers show large and reliable individual differences in gaze behavior along several semantic object dimensions. Individual gaze behavior toward faces has been linked to face identity processing, including that of neurotypical observers. Here, we investigated potential gaze biases in Super-Recognizers (SRs), individuals with exceptional face identity processing skills. Ten SRs, identified with a novel conservative diagnostic framework, and 43 controls freely viewed 700 complex scenes depicting more than 5000 objects. First, we tested whether SRs and controls differ in fixation biases along four semantic dimensions: faces, text, objects being touched, and bodies. Second, we tested potential group differences in fixation biases toward eyes and mouths. Finally, we tested whether SRs fixate closer to the theoretical optimal fixation point for face identification. SRs showed a stronger gaze bias toward faces and away from text and touched objects, starting from the first fixation onward. Further, SRs spent a significantly smaller proportion of first fixations and dwell time toward faces on mouths but did not differ in dwell time or first fixations devoted to eyes. Face fixation of SRs also fell significantly closer to the theoretical optimal fixation point for identification, just below the eyes. Our findings suggest that reliable superiority for face identity processing is accompanied by early fixation biases toward faces and preferred saccadic landing positions close to the theoretical optimum for face identification. We discuss future directions to investigate the functional basis of individual fixation behavior and face identity processing ability.

Anticipatory grasping control modulates somatosensory perception.

Somatosensory perception is hampered on the moving limb during a goal-directed movement. This somatosensory suppression is mostly attributed to a forward model that predicts future states of the system based on the established motor command. Here, we examined whether and how this suppression is modulated by the predictability of object features important for controlling a grasping movement. Participants reached to grasp an object between thumb and index finger and then lifted it as straight as possible. Objects with symmetric or asymmetric mass distributions were presented either in a blocked or random manner, so that the object's mass distribution could be anticipated or not. At the moment of object contact, a brief vibrotactile stimulus of varying intensities was presented on the dorsal part of the moving index finger. Participants had to report whether they detected the stimulus. When the object's mass distribution was predictable, contact points with the object were modulated to the object's centre of mass. This modulation contributed to a minimized resultant object roll during lifting. When the object's mass distribution was unpredictable, participants chose a default grasping configuration, resulting in greater object roll for asymmetric mass distributions. Somatosensory perception was hampered when grasping both types of objects compared to baseline (no-movement). Importantly, somatosensory suppression was stronger when participants could predict the object's mass distribution. We suggest that the strength of somatosensory suppression depends on the predictability of movement-relevant object features.

Reading the mind in the nose.

Humans infer mental states and traits from faces and their expressions. Previous research focused on the role of eyes and mouths in this process, even though most observers fixate somewhere in between. Here, we report that ratings of the nose region are surprisingly consistent with those for the full face and even with subjective feelings of the nose bearer. We propose the nose as central to faces and their perception.

The influence of afferent input on somatosensory suppression during grasping.

The processing of somatosensory information is hampered on a moving limb. This suppression has been widely attributed to sensorimotor predictions that suppress the associated feedback, though postdictive mechanisms are also involved. Here, we investigated the extent to which suppression on a limb is influenced by backward somatosensory signals, such as afferents associated with forces that this limb applies. Participants grasped and lifted objects of symmetric and asymmetric mass distributions using a precision grip. We probed somatosensory processing at the moment of the grasp by presenting a vibrotactile stimulus either on the thumb or index finger and asked participants to report if they felt this stimulus. Participants applied greater forces with the thumb and index finger for objects loaded to the thumb's or index finger's endpoint, respectively. However, suppression was not influenced by the different applied forces. Suppression on the digits remained constant both when grasping heavier objects, and thus applying even greater forces, and when probing suppression on the skin over the muscle that controlled force application. These results support the idea that somatosensory suppression is predictive in nature while backward masking may only play a minor role in somatosensory processing on the moving hand, at least in this context.