• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Human Gaze Direction / Detection & Eye Contact

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
54,631
Pupils 'must look away to think'

Pupils should be encouraged to look away from their teacher when answering a question, scientists have found.
Far from daydreaming, children who avert their gaze when considering their response to a question are more likely to come up with the correct answer.

Stirling University psychologists found that, when looking away, five-year-olds answered 72% of questions well.

But when children had not been instructed to look away when thinking, they answered just 50% correctly.

The experiment, conducted among 20 children aged five, backs up other studies carried out by the Stirling researchers, which suggest that by the age of eight, children instinctively avert their gaze when considering a response to a question.

Dr Gwyneth Doherty-Sneddon from Stirling said taking the gaze away from the human face was very important when trying to concentrate.

"Looking at faces is quite mentally demanding," Dr Doherty-Sneddon told the BBC News website.

"We get useful information from the face when listening to someone, but human faces are very stimulating and all this takes processing.

"So when we are trying to concentrate and process something else that's mentally demanding, it's unhelpful to look at faces."

Adults 'should wait'

The researchers believe teachers and parents often mistake "gaze aversion" for children failing to understand a question and do not give them enough time to compose an answer.

"The mistake adults make is to interject too quickly, they need to try and hold back," said Dr Doherty-Sneddon.

"If they avert their gaze, it's worth waiting because they are probably trying to come up with something.

"There is this idea of 'look at me when I'm talking to you', but it should be okay to look away at some point of the interaction."

If a child looked blankly at an adult when asked a question it was a good indicator that the question had not been understood, she added.

The research, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, was published in the British Journal of Developmental Psychology.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4602178.stm

An interesting idea, new to this aged one-time teacher. (Not that I ever taught 5 year olds.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Human evolution

Eyeing up the collaboration

Nov 2nd 2006
From The Economist print edition


The whites of the eyes suggest early humans were co-operative

THE sight of a group of men standing round watching another man work on his car is familiar in cultures throughout the world. It is also an example of what seems to be a primal human interaction—the mutual direction of gaze. Indeed, being able to identify what someone else is looking at is thought to have been so important to humans that people evolved to have eyes surrounded by brilliant whites to assist with the process. Now new research from Germany backs up the idea.

People, more than any other primate, depend on their fellow humans to figure out where to direct their attention. Previous research has shown that human children are much more willing than chimpanzees to co-operate with a human adult in manipulating objects—for example, taking it in turns to drop a ball down a chute. And when the children do, they spend a lot more time looking at the face of the adult, monitoring where that person is looking.


Humans also happen to have scleras—the white part of the eye surrounding the iris—that are much bigger and brighter than the scleras of other primates. In fact, most other primates have scleras that are so dark that they camouflage which way the eyes are looking. The theory is that a white sclera surrounding a darker iris and pupil helps people work out where everyone else is looking. If this were correct, people might be expected to pay more attention to the eyes than do other primates.

So researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, decided to compare adult chimpanzees, gorillas and bonobos with human children of a year or 18 months in age. In the experiment, reported online in the Journal of Human Evolution, a human adult first attracted the attention of the non-human ape or the human child, and then looked up at the ceiling. The experimenter moved only his eyes, moved his head and his eyes, or moved his head and kept his eyes closed. In later versions of the experiment he also turned around so that only the back of his head was visible and then either moved his head up or stayed still.

Both the non-human apes and the human children tended to look where they thought the experimenter was looking. But the non-human apes paid the most attention to where the experimenter's head was pointing, in particular, looking up when the head was pointed up, no matter what the eyes were doing. Human children, on the other hand, paid the most attention to the eyes, and were relatively indifferent to where the head was pointed.

The idea that people evolved eyes that make it easy for others to see where they are looking suggests just how important sociability was for early humans. If human interactions were primarily competitive, it would be advantageous to camouflage eye movements, as other apes seem to have done. That way, it would be hard for a competitor to see someone eyeing a tasty banana or potential mate. Instead, people have evolved to make it easy for others to see where they are looking. The advantages of co-operation seem to have outweighed those of competition

http://www.economist.com/science/displa ... id=8103817
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How interesting.

I was reading something similar the other day about "ostensible communication" or some such phrase, where what is being communicated is the desire to show someone something, or direct their attention in some way. The results were similar in that eye contact was essential for such communication, but the purpose was different.
 
This November 2018 article provides a fairly technical survey of research and results into gaze direction and interpersonal responses to averted gazes.
Adaptation to the Direction of Others’ Gaze: A Review

The direction of another person’s gaze provides us with a strong cue to their intentions and future actions, and, correspondingly, the human visual system has evolved to extract information about others’ gaze from the sensory stream. The perception of gaze is a remarkably plastic process: adaptation to a particular direction of gaze over a matter of seconds or minutes can cause marked aftereffects in our sense of where other people are looking. In this review, we first discuss the measurement, specificity, and neural correlates of gaze aftereffects. We then examine how studies that have explored the perceptual and neural determinants of gaze aftereffects have provided key insights into the nature of how other people’s gaze direction is represented within the visual hierarchy. This includes the level of perceptual representation of gaze direction (e.g., relating to integrated vs. local facial features) and the interaction of this system with higher-level social-cognitive functions, such as theory of mind. Moreover, computational modeling of data from behavioral studies of gaze adaptation allows us to make inferences about the functional principles that govern the neural encoding of gaze direction. This in turn provides a foundation for testing computational theories of neuropsychiatric conditions in which gaze processing is compromised, such as autism. ...

FULL ARTICLE: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02165/full
 
More on the co-operative nature of early humans.

Ancient hunter-gatherers helped accelerate cultural and technological revolutions more than 300,000 years ago by forming small social networks and exchanging ideas and knowledge, scientists have said.

Researchers in the UK and Switzerland studied social interactions between present-day Agta hunter-gatherers living in the scattered, isolated regions of the Philippines.

They found the social structure of the Agta people to be built around small family units linked by strong friendships across different groups.

According to the scientists, the findings suggest friendships between individuals and small communities was key to the development of new cultural and technological ideas that advanced human evolution.

Dr Mark Dyble, of University College London’s anthropology department and co-author of the paper, said: “Humans have a unique capacity to create and accumulate culture.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/break...evolution-through-social-networks-984801.html
 
For a lot of species, making direct eye contact is seen as a challenge. Averting your eyes is also a sign of subservience among some human cultures. Also avoiding eye contact is one of the symptoms of autism. On the whole though, eye contact does seem to be the standard. Along with showing your teeth, it seems to be one of those traits which have a very different meaning for humans. Any ideas as to why?
 
Averting one's gaze is an indication of shame (by refusing to meet and acknowledge an accusing stare). By displaying a willingness to make eye contact, one is demonstrating candour and honesty by showing that there is no guile or dishonesty to be uncovered: no attempt to obfuscate one's true feelings.

This is why it is also taken as proof of love and affection.

Humans are different as we often disguise our emotions; I'll bet that other primates also do so to a lesser or greater extent.
 
Last edited:
For a lot of species, making direct eye contact is seen as a challenge. Averting your eyes is also a sign of subservience among some human cultures. Also avoiding eye contact is one of the symptoms of autism. On the whole though, eye contact does seem to be the standard. Along with showing your teeth, it seems to be one of those traits which have a very different meaning for humans. Any ideas as to why?

It's also a challenge for humans in some circumstances: "what the fuck are you looking at?"
 
This wasn't a simple query, this is about an important aspect of the human condition and it's origins.

Fuck it then, we'll go back to talking about Covid.
 
This wasn't a simple query, this is about an important aspect of the human condition and it's origins.

Fuck it then, we'll go back to talking about Covid.

a) There is no hierarchy of sub-forums. I moved your thread in the hope of eliciting more responses.
b) If you would prefer to have the thread in the Human Condition sub-forum, I'm perfectly happy to move it back there (Edit: since done).
c) You might have heard that, proverbially speaking, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
 
I'm not convinced we do look each other in the eye most of the time. When I'm talking to people, or when they are talking to me, we occasionally glance at each other's eyes, often to make sure they are listening. But this does not constitute a steady gaze. Humans feel uncomfortable if you stare at them for more than a few moments; someone who looks into your eyes continuously seems weird, like they are obsessive, or hypnotised, or trying to sell you something. Or maybe threatening.

I recall a segment of a story by the late great Iain M Banks; a captured alien, tied up and apparently helpless, engages his captor in conversation while he tries to loosen his bonds. The alien has noticed that the human looks at him less often while speaking to him, and the alien uses this quirk of behaviour to his advantage. Consider Phlebas, p408.
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking that looking into eyes is a consequence of the development of speech in humans.
Speech requires nuance (unlike a few grunts) and nuance requires confirmation. Therefore the range of human facial expressions is also greater than those in our primate cousins. Part of that confirmation may be looking at the eyes of the other person to determine their true intent.
This may be one of the reasons why autistic people cannot correctly interpret emotions - they are simply not looking for the cues.
 
For a lot of species, making direct eye contact is seen as a challenge. Averting your eyes is also a sign of subservience among some human cultures. Also avoiding eye contact is one of the symptoms of autism. On the whole though, eye contact does seem to be the standard. Along with showing your teeth, it seems to be one of those traits which have a very different meaning for humans. Any ideas as to why?

I'm not sure that "eye contact does seem to be the standard."

It is not only dependant on culture, but also on context within that culture.

Whilst many species have something that we think of as culture (dolphins are known to have dialects, chimpanzees have something akin to tribes, even the sparrow hawk learns a variety of hunting strategies which may vary according to locality) only humans have developed the ability to understand their culture intellectually and to manipulate their behaviour systematically to achieve their desired ends within that culture.

The very fact that you asked the question shows that we are aware that eye contact — the choice of whether to make it or avoid it — is an important social signal.

A dog will react to a situation instinctively by either making or not making eye contact (and other signals); the other dog will then react instinctively to the signals it perceives. In the case of two humans, one may make a conscious choice of what signals to (try to) send, and the other may make a conscious decision to (try to) react one way or another.
 
The sclera, the white part of the eyes, also seems to be more visible in humans

Jordan BP argues convincingly that homo sapiens has iteratively-selected for white sclerae over many generations as a fundamental protospeciation that is not paralleled elsewhere amongst the Great Apes.

This has clearly been for the key purpose of instantly-gauging interpersonal trust/distrust in the constant telempathic cross-calculus that is human interaction, predating the development of language by millennea.

Paleopeople with unreadable eyes did not breed. Or perhaps were shunned/ killed.

We instinctively read masses of insight (even unintended) from the movement of eyes around us. Whether it be reverence, lust, fear, approbation or attention, our intrinsic reliance upon peripherally-detected movement and calculated direction-of-gaze is utterly astounding in its accuracy and level of contribution to perception.

Anecdotally (although there will be reviewed scientific literature that backs this assertion) we are able to accurately-tell at distances of 5m not only that someone is looking at us, but whether they are looking at our left/right eye, nose, mouth or chin.

I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling decidedly-uncomfortable when someone wears sunglasses in circumstances where really they should not. The (sometimes deliberate/sometimes collateral) loss to others of the essential clues that the sclera gives us under such circumstances cannot be underestimated.

I need to check whether Morris covers this pupil target vector visualisation in 'Naked Ape' (he certainly emphasises the pupilliary dilation aspect of attraction/friendship).

seems to be more visible in humans than in a lot of animals.
Aha! Dogs are very-similar in their bioptic makeup (visible sclera in many breeds), and are extremely-attuned to reading what human eyes really mean.
 
Last edited:
Paleopeople with unreadable eyes did not breed. Or perhaps were shunned/ killed.

and yet here the autistics are, and have been at least since the middle ages. We can be genetic or a spontaneous thing.

Seems to be mostly genetic though which suggests that we bred in the past much as we do now.
 
and yet here the autistics are, and have been at least since the middle ages
<genuine_question> This time-tag takes me totally by surprise. Are we saying that it is an accepted scientific fact that autism has not existed alongside neurotypicals since the earliest origins of sapient humanity? That it is a recent adaptation from just 500/1500 past years'-worth of our existence?? If so, how on earth has that been established? And does it therefore represent the future new emerging dominant conventionality? Fascinating....</genuine_question>
 
Anecdotally (although there will be reviewed scientific literature that backs this assertion) we are able to accurately-tell at distances of 5m not only that someone is looking at us, but whether they are looking at our left/right eye, nose, mouth or chin.

This can't be true. You can be standing face to face with someone and be looking at the tip of their nose and they will think you are looking them directly in the eye. I've tried this.
 
<genuine_question> This time-tag takes me totally by surprise. Are we saying that it is an accepted scientific fact that autism has not existed alongside neurotypicals since the earliest origins of sapient humanity? That it is a recent adaptation from just 500/1500 past years'-worth of our existence?? If so, how on earth has that been established? And does it therefore represent the future new emerging dominant conventionality? Fascinating....</genuine_question>


er..... I said at least since the middle ages. That's the earliest written descriptions as far as I know.
 
Will they really? Most intrigued. Have you tested this? You're going to say yes, I can tell

Yes, many autistics just don't do eye contact, we look at brows, philtrum, mouth, hairline.... As long as you don't go too far from the middle line.

As further info:

* many autistics experience eye to eye as overwhelming terror. As in fight, flight or freeze. Not mild discomfort, full-blown panic.

* many of us experience eye to eye as intrusive and over personal - think about visiting a culture where people stand well within your personal space and keep eye to eye contact.

* many of us experience eye to eye as inappropriate. As in inappropriate touching.

Thought exercise: imagine experiencing one or more of the above every time a parent or boss or police or whoever insists on making and keeping eye contact. :eek:
 
I have found that if talking to someone I know, but not closely, if I think about whether I should give them eye contact it makes me self conscious. This appear to picked up by the other person and I feel that it makes me look a bit shifty. Most of the time this thought never occurs to me and I act 'normally'.
 
Its' often noted that killers - Manson and the like have a "dead eye", stare, not folk you would wan't to make eye contact with.
 
I'd say it's down to how we are designed. flat-faced with eyes facing forward. Cats have forward-facing eyes too but they are not designed specifically to operate in large groups, (lions aside), I'm not saying they can't most species just don't.

Therefore it's an evolutionary thing for us humans to communicate by looking at eyes.

We don't have a great sense of smell and don't have a vomeronasal organ-like cats do. At some point, if we had it we've lost it.

We don't have a particularly good hearing as our ears are badly-placed.

Touching someone who is a stranger may or may not end well.

So what do we have? Sight? This has evolved into the cooperative eye hypothesis - which in itself I think being made redundant by speech.

I wonder as speech progressed did our reliance on eye-eye contact lessen? Probably.
 
Back
Top