Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In nearly every interpersonal encounter, people readily gather socio-visual cues to guide their behavior. Intriguingly, social information is most effective in directing behavior when it is perceived in crowds. For example, the shared gaze of a crowd is more likely to direct attention than is a single person’s gaze. Are people equipped with mechanisms to perceive a crowd’s gaze as an ensemble? Here, we provide the first evidence that the visual system extracts a summary representation of a crowd’s attention; observers rapidly pooled information from multiple crowd members to perceive the direction of a group’s collective gaze. This pooling occurred in high-level stages of visual processing, with gaze perceived as a global-level combination of information from head and pupil rotation. These findings reveal an important and efficient mechanism for assessing crowd gaze, which could underlie the ability to perceive group intentions, orchestrate joint attention, and guide behavior.

Keywords

ensemble coding summary statistical perception joint attention eye gaze social perception

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allison

Puce

McCarthy

(2000). Social perception from visual cues: Role of the STS region. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 267–278.

Alvarez

G. A.

(2011). Representing multiple objects as an ensemble enhances visual cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 122–131. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.01.003

Anstis

S. M.

Mayhew

J. W.

Morley

(1969). The perception of where a face or television ‘portrait’ is looking. The American Journal of Psychology, 82, 474–489.

Ariely

(2001). Seeing sets: Representation by statistical properties. Psychological Science, 12, 157–162.

Baron-Cohen

(1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cline

M. G.

(1967). The perception of where a person is looking. The American Journal of Psychology, 80, 41–50.

Dakin

S. C.

Bex

P. J.

Cass

J. R.

Watt

R. J.

(2009). Dissociable effects of attention and crowding on orientation averaging. Journal of Vision, 9(11), Article 28. Retrieved from http://www.journalofvision.org/content/9/11/28.full

De Souza

W. C.

Eifuki

Tamura

Nishijo

Ono

(2005). Differential characteristics of face neuron responses within the anterior superior temporal sulcus of macaques. Journal of Neurophysiology, 94, 1252–1266.

Dimberg

Thunberg

Elmehed

(2000). Unconscious facial reactions to emotional facial expressions. Psychological Science, 11, 86–89.

10.

Doi

Kazuhiro

(2007). Searching for a perceived stare in the crowd. Perception, 36, 773–780.

11.

Driver

Davis

Ricciardelli

Kidd

Maxwell

Baron-Cohen

(1999). Gaze perception triggers reflexive visuospatial orienting. Visual Cognition, 6, 509–540.

12.

Farah

M. J.

Wilson

K. D.

Drain

H. M.

Tanaka

J. R.

(1995). The inverted face inversion effect in prosopagnosia: Evidence for mandatory, face-specific perception mechanisms. Vision Research, 35, 2089–2093.

13.

Friesen

C. K.

Kingstone

(1998). The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 490–495.

14.

Gallup

A. C.

Hale

J. J.

Sumpter

D. J.

Garnier

Kacelnik

Krebs

J. R.

Couzin

I. D.

(2012). Visual attention and the acquisition of information in human crowds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 109, 7245–7250.

15.

Gibson

J. T.

Pick

A. D.

(1963). Perception of another person’s looking behavior. The American Journal of Psychology, 76, 386–394.

16.

Granovetter

(1978). Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 1420–1443.

17.

Haberman

Whitney

(2007). Rapid extraction of mean emotion and gender from sets of faces. Current Biology, 17, R751–R753. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.039

18.

Helbing

Farkas

Vicsek

(2000). Simulating dynamical features of escape panic. Nature, 407, 487–490. doi:10.1038/35035023

19.

Itier

R. J.

Batty

(2009). Neural bases of eye and gaze processing: The core of social cognition. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 33, 843–863.

20.

Langton

S. R. H.

Honeyman

Tessler

(2004). The influence of head contour and nose angle on the perception of eye-gaze direction. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 752–771.

21.

Loffler

Gordon

G. E.

Wilkinson

Goren

Wilson

H. R.

(2005). Configural masking of faces: Evidence for high-level interactions in face perception. Vision Research, 45, 2287–2297.

22.

Maruyama

Endo

(1984). Illusory face dislocation effect and configurational integration in the inverted face. Tohoku Psychologica Folia, 43, 150–160.

23.

Maurer

Le Grand

Mondloch

C. J.

(2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255–260.

24.

Milner

Bickman

Berkowitz

(1969). Note on the drawing power of crowds of different size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 79–82.

25.

Myczek

Simons

D. J.

(2008). Better than average: Alternatives to statistical summary representations for rapid judgments of average size. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 772–788.

26.

Perrett

D. I.

Oram

M. W.

Ashbridge

(1998). Evidence accumulation in cell populations responsive to faces: An account of generalisation of recognition without mental transformations. Cognition, 67, 111–145.

27.

Perrett

D. I.

Smith

A. J.

Potter

D. D.

Mistlin

A. J.

Head

A. S.

Milner

A. D.

Jeeves

M. A.

(1985). Visual cells in the temporal cortex sensitive to face view and gaze direction. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 223, 293–317.

28.

Riesenhuber

Jarudi

Gilad

Sinha

(2004). Face processing in humans is compatible with a simple shape-based model of vision. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271, S448–S450.

29.

Sekuler

A. B.

Gaspar

C. M.

Gold

J. M.

Bennett

P. J.

(2004). Inversion leads to quantitative, not qualitative, changes in face processing. Current Biology, 14, 391–396.

30.

Sumpter

D. J.

Pratt

S. C.

(2008). Quorum responses and consensus decision making. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364, 743–753.

31.

Suzuki

Cavanagh

(1995). Facial organization blocks access to low-level features: An object inferiority effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 901–913.

32.

Sweeny

T. D.

Haroz

Whitney

(2012). Reference repulsion in the categorical perception of biological motion. Vision Research, 64, 26–34.

33.

Sweeny

T. D.

Haroz

Whitney

(2013). Perceiving group behavior: Sensitive ensemble coding mechanisms for biological motion of human crowds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 329–337. doi:10.1037/a0028712

34.

Waytz

Young

(2012). The group-member mind trade-off: Attributing mind to groups versus group members. Psychological Science, 23, 77–85.

35.

Whitney

Haberman

Sweeny

T. D.

(2014). From textures to crowds: Multiple levels of summary statistical perception. In Werner

J. S.

Chalupa

L. M.

(Eds.), The new visual neurosciences (pp. 695–710). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

36.

Wollaston

W. H.

(1824). On the apparent direction of eyes in a portrait. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 114, 247–256.

37.

Won

B. Y.

Jiang

Y. V.

(2013). Redundancy effects in the processing of emotional faces. Vision Research, 78, 6–13.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.46 MB