Effects of Inversion and Fixation Location on the Processing of Face and House Stimuli - A Mass Univariate Analysis.

Most Event Related Potential studies investigating the time course of visual processing have focused mainly on the N170 component. Stimulus orientation affects the N170 amplitude for faces but not for objects, a finding interpreted as reflecting holistic/configural processing for faces and featural processing for objects. Furthermore, while recent studies suggest where on the face people fixate impacts the N170, fixation location effects have not been investigated in objects. A data-driven mass univariate analysis (all time points and electrodes) was used to investigate the time course of inversion and fixation location effects on the neural processing of faces and houses. Strong and widespread orientation effects were found for both faces and houses, from 100-350ms post-stimulus onset, including P1 and N170 components, and later, a finding arguing against a lack of holistic processing for houses. While no clear fixation effect was found for houses, fixation location strongly impacted face processing early, reflecting retinotopic mapping around the C2 and P1 components, and during the N170-P2 interval. Face inversion effects were also largest for nasion fixation around 120ms. The results support the view that facial feature integration (1) depends on which feature is being fixated and where the other features are situated in the visual field, (2) occurs maximally during the P1-N170 interval when fixation is on the nasion and (3) continues past 200ms, suggesting the N170 peak, where weak effects were found, might be an inflexion point between processes rather than the end of a feature integration into a whole process.

Attention spreads between students in a learning environment.

We propose a novel phenomenon, attention contagion, defined as the spread of attentive (or inattentive) states among members of a group. We examined attention contagion in a learning environment in which pairs of undergraduate students watched a lecture video. Each pair consisted of a participant and a confederate trained to exhibit attentive behaviors (e.g., leaning forward) or inattentive behaviors (e.g., slouching). In Experiment 1, confederates sat in front of participants and could be seen. Relative to participants who watched the lecture with an inattentive confederate, participants with an attentive confederate: (a) self-reported higher levels of attentiveness, (b) behaved more attentively (e.g., took more notes), and (c) had better memory for lecture content. In Experiment 2, confederates sat behind participants. Despite confederates not being visible, participants were still aware of whether confederates were acting attentively or inattentively, and participants were still susceptible to attention contagion. Our findings suggest that distraction is one factor that contributes to the spread of inattentiveness (Experiment 1), but this phenomenon apparently can still occur in the absence of distraction (Experiment 2). We propose an account of how (in)attentiveness spreads across students and discuss practical implications regarding how learning is affected in the classroom. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).