View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Sensitive Children's Attention and Emotional Response to Student-Teacher Interactions

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Sensitive Children's Attention and Emotional Response to Student-Teacher Interactions
Language: English
Authors: Sara Scrimin (ORCID 0000-0001-6290-322X), Paolo Girardi, Libera Ylenia Mastromatteo
Source: Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal. 2025 28(1).
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Student Characteristics, Attention, Emotional Response, Teacher Student Relationship, Elementary School Students, Elementary School Teachers, Arousal Patterns, Educational Environment, Emotional Development, Social Development
DOI: 10.1007/s11218-024-09971-7
ISSN: 1381-2890
1573-1928
Abstract: Student-teacher interactions capture bystanders' attention causing an emotional arousal that takes away the focus of attention form the assigned task. To assess attentional and emotional response to socio-emotional interactions within the classroom, student's eye movement and dilatation were registered while investigating children's environmental sensitivity. Primary school children's pupil response (n = 95) while watching different interaction scenes were registered. Children self-reported on environmental sensitivity. Two mixed-effects regression models for pupil fixation durations and dilatation showed that students' attention was captured more by the teacher yet the focus on the student caused grater arousal. The association between emotional arousal and focus of attention was moderated by students' environmental sensitivity with incongruent socio-emotional exchanges causing grater emotional arousal in highly sensitive children compared to low sensitive ones. Intervention should promote emotionally positive and in-tune teacher-student interactions to avoid students' distraction and sympathetic arousal, especially in more environmentally sensitive students.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1454319
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF_YfcGZWTj9QLAfoeGEjiJAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAgucsdjyz0126rD8AIBEICBm4cs1N02C7CgPg4pkykckbkALoo7zMDUulaVfjgIujZmDTMNA1GuqQk_HXbyHBJp70fyU1pwb3q8NBvtOo8t_aGfyVkuLnHtS7kdMm54jpHQ7JovKurA1CfD1USm8eHiomxT0zxPahSG8bRafkYtBpucVZV7hmRqD6d6QPe9HdyJQDKCBFsp1hOF44svVFbNzSm1HaztoWmMJE1O
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0181875883;luo01feb.25;2025Jan29.13:04;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181875883-1">Sensitive children's attention and emotional response to student-teacher interactions </title> <p>Student-teacher interactions capture bystanders' attention causing an emotional arousal that takes away the focus of attention form the assigned task. To assess attentional and emotional response to socio-emotional interactions within the classroom, student's eye movement and dilatation were registered while investigating children's environmental sensitivity. Primary school children's pupil response (n = 95) while watching different interaction scenes were registered. Children self-reported on environmental sensitivity. Two mixed-effects regression models for pupil fixation durations and dilatation showed that students' attention was captured more by the teacher yet the focus on the student caused grater arousal. The association between emotional arousal and focus of attention was moderated by students' environmental sensitivity with incongruent socio-emotional exchanges causing grater emotional arousal in highly sensitive children compared to low sensitive ones. Intervention should promote emotionally positive and in-tune teacher-student interactions to avoid students' distraction and sympathetic arousal, especially in more environmentally sensitive students.</p> <p>Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-024-09971-7.</p> <hd id="AN0181875883-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Classrooms are social lively environments: pupils engage with one another and interact with the teacher constantly. Social interactions play a paramount role in our everyday life and are very salient events that capture attention (Laidlaw et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref1">33</reflink>]). In the life of students, teachers are very significant adults (Hajovsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref2">23</reflink>]). Literature have widely addressed student-teacher relationship showing how the type and quality of the interactions can directly affect both the teacher and the student involved (Jerome et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref3">29</reflink>]; Pallini et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref4">41</reflink>]; Prewett et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref5">50</reflink>]; Zee et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref6">62</reflink>]). However, less is known about whether these interactions indirectly affect the rest of the class (i.e., bystander/spectator students). Students that are not directly engaged in an interaction with the teacher may be distracted from their task to look at social transactions that are taking place in the room. Several studies argue that attentional orienting and the further processing of task-irrelevant information can impair performance (distraction effect, for review see Escera et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref7">18</reflink>]). Furthermore, while visual attention is focused on the interaction between the teacher and one or more classmates an emotional arousal might take place disengaging the student form the assigned task. When studying student-teacher transaction within the classroom attention is mostly on the two members of the dyad. However, literature from other social environments have shown that children that passively observe social interactions (e.g., the family environment, Saltzman et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref8">54</reflink>] and peer interactions, Callaghan et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref9">11</reflink>]) are highly impacted from what happens.</p> <p>In complex social interactions with multiple, dynamic cues, attention allocation is crucial to give way to social information processing and consequent event interpretation (Crick & Dodge, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref10">14</reflink>]), emotion regulation (Thayer & Lane, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref11">61</reflink>]), and behavioral reactivity (Racer & Dishion, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref12">52</reflink>]). Under the common assumptions that where one looks is where one's attention is allocated and that visual information around the gaze location is processed (e.g., Hessels et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref13">25</reflink>]), knowing where children look at a given point in time can thus provide crucial insights into perceptual, cognitive and emotional responses.</p> <p>Moreover, individuals can significantly differ their sensitivity to the environment. For example, students within a classroom will perceive social interactions taking place in the environment around them differently based on their individual characteristics and on their level of sensory processing sensitivity of the environment. That is, while some will be strongly affected by the surrounding, others might not even notice. This individual trait could influence the way different social interactions within the class are perceived by students and hence how they respond in terms of both emotional arousal and attention.</p> <p>In the present study we aim at assessing, through eye tracking technology, how pupils perceive social interactions occurring within the classroom and how they emotionally respond to them. We will also account for the role of students' environmental sensitivity in processing the information coming from student-teacher in class communications. This is relevant to understand in what measure such interactions might influence students' emotional wellbeing and academic functioning within the classroom even when not involved firsthand in such vertical social interactions.</p> <hd id="AN0181875883-3">Eye tracking to assess attentional focus and emotional response</hd> <p>The study of children and students' eye movements and pupil dilatation assumes that the allocation of gaze is reflective of different psychological processes such as attention or emotional responses (Frischen et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref14">19</reflink>]). The location of the fovea fixation is assumed to coincide with the spatial location of the focus of attention. That is, if a student fixates the blackboard or the face of the teacher, it is assumed that there is some information at that location that may be relevant for them. Attentional deployment is a cognitive process that selects relevant inputs that should be processed leaving out irrelevant or less relevant information (Chun & Turk-Browne, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref15">13</reflink>]). Salient information is filtered and processed through attentional processes, which can be both automatic and controlled (Calvo & Nummenmaa, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref16">12</reflink>]). Hence when studying where the focus of attention is, we can understand how the child perceives and interprets environmental information. The longer the person's gaze remains focused on a specific area the more that is perceived as relevant (Pieters & Wedel, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref17">45</reflink>]). Interestingly, literature that uses eye tracker apparatus to study reading and text comprehension has also emphasized how the time spent looking back at a specific area of interest is a key index when in the aim of assessing a more focused attention (Hyönä et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref18">26</reflink>]; Hyönä & Nurminen, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref19">28</reflink>]). Specifically, to trace attentional processing while watching the scene displayed in the monitor, two finer-grained indices (Hyönä et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref20">26</reflink>]; Hyönä & Nurminen, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref21">28</reflink>]) can be considered and have also been used in our study. One of these is the <emph>first-pass fixation time</emph>, which is the summed duration of all fixations on a target region before exiting from it. The other index is the <emph>second-pass fixation time</emph> or <emph>look-back</emph> fixation time, that is, the summed duration of all fixations that return to a target region after its first-pass processing, for example the re-watching time of a particular area of interest. It is worth noting that <emph>first-pass fixation time</emph> is considered to reflect the initial processing of the material. <emph>Look-back fixation time</emph> is considered to reflect a less automatic and more intentional processing. More precisely, <emph>look-back</emph> fixation time is considered to reflect the reprocessing and more focused observation of a region that captures greater attention and is deemed to be more relevant. These fixation indexes have been previously used mostly on research focusing on text processing and comprehension. However, for the purpose of the present study it is relevant to understand what happens to the child attentional focus and what information presented in the scene is re-processed as considered as more relevant (that is capturing greater attention) (Ariasi & Mason, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>]; Hyönä et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref23">27</reflink>]; Hyönä & Nurminen, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref24">28</reflink>]). We aim at assessing which of the figures involved in the interaction (the teacher and the student) are perceived as more relevant and hence captures for longer periods of time the students' attentional focus (gaze fixation time of the first and second pass).</p> <p>In addition to pupil gaze fixations and duration, more recent studies have also considered the role of pupil dilatation. Specifically, it has been argued that attentional deployment plays a critical role in mood and emotion (Gross & Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref25">22</reflink>]; Koole, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref26">32</reflink>]). Ample evidence has shown how pupil dilates in response to emotionally relevant stimuli, as an index of sympathetic response. An increase in sympathetic activity, which indicates emotional arousal, can be examined using pupil dilation responses (Joshi et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref27">30</reflink>]; Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref28">35</reflink>]; Murphy et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref29">39</reflink>]; Scrimin et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref30">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>Thus, children focusing their attention on stimuli that are not only salient but also emotionally relevant should show pupil dilatation (Silk et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref31">59</reflink>]). For example, it has been shown that when watching someone in need children's pupil dilatate as an index of prosocial arousal and emotional involvement (Hepach, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref32">24</reflink>]). Similarly, in both preschoolers and adults, observing situations that induce harm to others elicit an increase in pupil size (Decety et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref33">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>Hence, we should expect an increase in pupil dilatation when gaze fixation is on social interaction occurring within the classroom and an even greater increase in pupillary response when the interactions are causing emotional distress (e.g., the teacher scolding the student).</p> <p>Interestingly, not all individuals respond to socio-emotional interactions in the same way. There is a significant individual variability in how much a social interaction captures the child's focus of attention (i.e., is deemed relevant) and on which degree it can evoke an emotional response. Research on individual differences in students' emotional arousal (measured in terms of student' physiological activation) in response to everyday emotional dynamics within the class is nearly nonexistent. Data on students' individual differences in emotional materials are also scarce. Yet it is plausible to expect that students who are in general more disposed to high emotional reactivity may engage and perform differently from their peers who are less emotionally reactive to environmental stimuli (Scrimin et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref34">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>In line with this, students whose attention is captured for longer periods from socio-emotional interactions occurring within the class and whose emotional arousal in response to such interactions is grater might be more distracted from the task and, thus, performing less well.</p> <p>The present study aims to assess student's focus of attention and emotional arousal when passively exposed to socio-emotional interactions taking place within the classroom between the teacher and a target student. Moreover, given the importance of individual characteristics in these patterns of response, we also accounted for participants' sensitivity for the environment.</p> <hd id="AN0181875883-4">Environmental sensitivity</hd> <p>Children differ substantially in the way they register, process, and respond to many different aspects of their social and physical environment. Different degrees of sensitivity and responsivity are found within the childhood population, with some children being more and others less responsive to the same environmental conditions (Belsky & Pluess, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref35">5</reflink>]; Greven et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref36">20</reflink>]). This variations in environmental responses are reflected in the individual trait of Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS, Aron et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>]; Greven et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref38">20</reflink>]; Pluess, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref39">46</reflink>]). SPS refers to the heightened ability to notice and interpret both internal and external stimuli. This heightened sensitivity and reactivity to experiences are believed to stem from a more responsive central nervous system that processes experiences more profoundly (Aron et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref40">2</reflink>]; Greven et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref41">20</reflink>]). A high SPS trait has also been associated with several mental health (Dean et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref42">15</reflink>]) as well as behavioral problems (Boterberg & Warreyn, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref43">7</reflink>]; Reynolds et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref44">53</reflink>]) during childhood. Individual differences in relation to how environmental (and internal) stimuli are being perceived and processed has been investigated as an important factor influencing how individuals respond and adjust to the world. For example, according to the <emph>diathesis-stress</emph> model (Monroe & Simons, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref45">37</reflink>]), individuals who carry sensitivity factors are more likely to manifest an increased vulnerability to negative environments while the others are more resilient in response to adverse events. For example, the negative impact of adverse experiences in childhood and adult life satisfaction was exacerbated among highly sensitive individuals (Booth et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref46">6</reflink>]). However, research has shown that these same individuals who carry a high sensitivity trait are not only vulnerable to adversities, but also are more sensitive to positive stimuli. Individuals with an increased environmental sensitivity have been reported to benefit more of positive rearing contexts and experiences, including nurturing and supportive parenting (e.g., Slagt et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref47">60</reflink>]), intervention and prevention programs (Nocentini et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref48">40</reflink>]; Pluess & Boniwell, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref49">48</reflink>]), and video-clip inducing positive emotions in laboratory contexts (Lionetti et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref50">34</reflink>]). Hence, individual sensitivity factors do not only amplify risk for maladaptation in the face of adversities, but also promote a flourishing development and an exceptionally positive adjustment when individuals experience high-quality environments (differential Susceptibility model; Belsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref51">4</reflink>]; Belsky & Pluess, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref52">5</reflink>]). From a vantage perspective (Pluess & Belsky, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref53">47</reflink>]), an increased susceptibility might allow individuals to exceptionally benefit of an enriched environment, with important implications for intervention and prevention programs. Indeed, the more recent <emph>Vantage Sensitivity</emph> framework captures the more positive component of sensitivity traits (Pluess & Belsky, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref54">47</reflink>]), providing a theoretical framework for the expectation of variability in response to positive experiences (Nocentini et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref55">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>Overall, the environmental sensitivity meta-framework proposes to consider the interaction between the individual and the environment as driven by individual differences in sensitivity to environmental stimuli. Environmental sensitivity represents a relevant moderator of the interplay between the environment and the individual in predicting how they responds to it and consequently adjusts to different social contexts (Pluess, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref56">46</reflink>]; Pluess & Belsky, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref57">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>Children with different environmental sensitivity respond differently to family environments. For example, children's environmental sensitivity was found to moderate the association between family adversities and children's' physical and emotional functioning, in the way that highly sensitive individuals are more strongly affected by the negative effects of a stressful environment but also benefit more from positive ones. Specifically, more sensitive children when exposed to early adverse experiences report greater physical and emotional discomfort as well as lower academic and social performance. Yet, they are also more responsive to the positive effect of a supportive family environment (Scrimin et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref58">58</reflink>]). Data on the role played by environmental sensitivity on students' adjustment to the school environment are scarce. However, it has been shown that within the classroom children's environmental sensitivity moderated the effects of anti-bulling interventions on victimization and internalizing symptoms, that is more sensitive children benefitted more to the intervention compared with the less sensitive ones. This findings within a classroom environment are consistent with the notion of vantage sensitivity, that suggests that more sensitive individuals are not only more at risk when exposed to negative environment but are also the ones that benefit the most from positive environments and possibly interventions (Nocentini et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref59">40</reflink>]; Pluess & Boniwell, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref60">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>In line with this data, differently sensitive students might respond differently to different salient interactions taking place within the classroom. This is supported by literature coming from the effect of other forms of individual differences on eye fixation patterns (Price et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref61">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>Interestingly, it has been shown that the focus of attention in terms of fixation and time of engagement and disengagement from the stimulus changes as a function of specific individual characteristics but also as a function of the type of stimulus they are exposed to. Hence, way we might expect children to respond differently when having different sensitivity but also to vary as a function of different forms of socio-emotional interactions taking place within the classroom (Buckner et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref62">10</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181875883-5">The present study</hd> <p>The general goal of the present study was to assess student's focus of attention and emotional arousal (as indexed by pupil dilatation) when exposed to different socio-emotional interactions within the classroom, also accounting for environmental sensitivity. Specifically, we aimed to answer at three research questions (RQ):</p> <p>RQ1) When looking at social teacher-student interactions within the classroom what captures children's attention? That is which condition, and which areas of interest (AOI) captures student's gaze for a longer duration in terms of first (i.e., initial processing of the material) and second (i.e., more intentional processing) pass fixations?</p> <p>Given that the classroom is a social environment where multiple interactions take place, we hypothesize that first pass durations would not significantly differ based on what is happening (condition) as the first rapid assessment of the environment usually involves all interactions (Hyönä & Nurminen, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref63">28</reflink>]). In terms of second pass fixations, however, it is difficult to advance a specific hypothesis. Following the stress literature, we might expect positive interactions to capture greater attention (i.e., longer fixation times) compared to negative ones. Indeed, negative interaction might cause a protective avoidant behavior as previously reported in response to negative stimuli (Elliot, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref64">17</reflink>]). Yet, the opposite might also happen as it has been previously reported a general tendency of students to be more vigilant towards school related stressors (Scrimin et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref65">56</reflink>]) and an over attention allocation in response to sources of emotional concern (Bar-Haim et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref66">3</reflink>]). Given the lack of previous data on bystanders' eye fixation and attentional focus this research question will be mainly exploratory.</p> <p>RQ2) When looking at social teacher-student interactions within the classroom, what causes grater student's arousal? That is, which condition and which AOI are associated with greater pupil dilatation in second pass fixations?</p> <p>While no previous data have been published on pupil sympathetic response to socio emotional interactions between students and teachers, following the previous literature on the processing of emotional material, we can expect emotionally negative interactions (e.g., teacher behaving angrily) to cause a greater arousal in students (i.e., greater pupil dilatation compared to positive interactions with teachers behaving in a caring and compassionate way).</p> <p>RQ3) Are duration of fixations and pupil dilatation associated with children's environmental sensitivity? Do environmental sensitivity moderate the child response in terms of duration of fixation and pupil dilatation to different type of interactions (condition) and different AOI?</p> <p>Based on the environmental sensitivity meta-framework, here, we can hypothesize that more sensitive students will have a greater response both in terms of focus and arousal to the displayed student-teacher interactions compared with their less sensitive counterparts. Furthermore, the type of interaction (condition) might influence both the duration of the fixation and the pupil dilatation, yet given the lack of literature, the specific direction of the effect remains exploratory.</p> <hd id="AN0181875883-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181875883-7">Participants</hd> <p>A total of 140 first, second, and third graders (65 boys, 46.4%) with a mean age of 7.22 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 0.95) took part in the study. All students had normal or corrected to normal vision. Students attended public primary schools located in in Northern Italy. All families involved in this study had an average yearly income according to the Italian National Institute of Statistics (2018). Parental written permission and students' verbal assent were required for participation; in addition, written informed consent was obtained from school principals. The Study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the pertinent institution.</p> <p>Due to missing data or unreliable eye tracking registration, the final sample was composed by 87 students (41 boys, 47.1%), however the dataset was initially based 1913 fixation points. To select valid fixations, we added some exclusion criteria (Table S1) leading to a final dataset formed by 1667 fixations.</p> <hd id="AN0181875883-8">Procedure</hd> <p>Children were individually tested in a quiet room at school. Once the child entered the room, they were asked to perform several tasks to assess environmental sensitivity (for full description see Moscardino et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref67">38</reflink>]). Next, the child was introduced to the eye tracker apparatus, it was explained to them how it worked, and the calibration procedure took place. After the initial calibration the task begun, and images were displayed on the screen. At the end of each sequence of figures (that is after each trial) the calibration was repeated.</p> <hd id="AN0181875883-9">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181875883-10">Attention task: stimulus material</hd> <p>Stimuli consisted of a set of six black and white pictures created ad hoc for the purpose of the study. The pictures represented scenes that can take place in a classroom (see Fig. 1). Specifically, the two starting scenes represented a classroom in which a child was caught by the teacher while miss-behaving, in one case the behavior was clearly illicit, that is the student was standing on his desk and acting silly. In the other case the student was just talking with a classmate while supposed to be quiet, that is less neglectful. These scenes were followed by two possible teacher's reactions the student's miss-behavior. That is, in one scene the teacher kindly approached the student explaining in a friendly the reasons way that the behavior was not acceptable (Positive Teacher). In the other scene the teacher angry approached the student, pointed at them and shouted to stop acting that way (Negative Teacher). In the last couple of scenes, the student response to the teacher was displayed. Specifically, in one scene the student was clearly sad and was ashamed of his own behavior (acting-in student). Whereas, in in the other scene the student responded with an angry expression appearing annoyed by being told off by the teacher (acting-out student).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Description of sequence of images presented to the child while eye movements and pupil dilatation were registered</p> <hd id="AN0181875883-11">Attention task: experimental design</hd> <p>The attention task comprised a total of eight trials. Each trial was made of a total of three images that sequentially followed one another in order to describe an interaction scene. The first condition presented the child clearly miss-behaving (i.e., standing on the table), followed by either the positive or the negative teacher scene, that in turn was followed by either an acting-in or an acting-out student's response scene (see Figure A1). The second condition started with the mild miss-behavior of the child (i.e., student talking with classmate) and was followed by all the possible previously presented combinations. All eight possible conditions (trials) were presented to all participants in a random order. The task also included one practice trial to show participants how the eye tracker apparatus worked.</p> <hd id="AN0181875883-12">Attention task: eye tracking device</hd> <p>Eye movements were collected using the Tobii T120 eye tracker, manufactured by Tobii Technology (Stockholm, Sweden). The eye tracker is an infrared video-based tracking system combined with hyperacuity image processing. The eye tracker embeds five near- infrared light-emitting diodes and a high-resolution camera with a charge-coupled device sensor. The camera sampled pupil location and pupil size at the rate of 120 Hz. The distance from each participant's eye to the monitor was approximately 60 cm. The Tobii T120 is integrated into a 17-inch TFT monitor where the text was displayed. Nine-point binocular calibration was used in this study and 8-point validation of the calibration accuracy (< 1.0 degrees in both the horizontal and vertical directions). Data were recorded with Tobii (2.1.14) software.</p> <hd id="AN0181875883-13">Attention task: attentional deployment indices</hd> <p>Fixation data were used to estimate attentional deployment patterns to emotional information. According to Gross ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref68">21</reflink>]), attentional deployment refers to "how individuals direct their attention within a given situation in order to influence their emotions" (pp. 559). Thus, attentional deployment in our study was indexed as a measure of the participants' gaze direction to different area of interest (AOI) during the stimuli presentation. Specifically, three AOI were identified as relevant: the student, the teacher, and the rest of the classmates displayed in the scenes. We were interested in tracing the time course of information processing to rely on quantitative and objective indices of visual behavior during the sequence of scenes presented. We therefore examined two distinct and subsequent stages of processing, first-pass and second- pass processing or re-processing. More specifically, the following eye-fixation indices were considered as relevant to the research purposes:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> total gaze time as the summed duration of all fixations on each AOI;</item> <p></p> <item> first-pass fixation time as the summed durations of all first-processing fixations on each AOI;</item> <p></p> <item> second-pass or look-back fixation time as the summed durations of all reinspective fixations on each AOI after its first-pass processing;</item> <p></p> <item> first-pass fixation means pupil diameter of all first-processing fixations on each AOI;</item> <p></p> <item> second-pass or look-back fixation mean pupil diameter of all reinspective fixations on each AOI after its first-pass processing.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0181875883-14">Environmental sensitivity</hd> <p>Environmental sensitivity was measured by directly assessing children's response in terms of valence and arousal when asked to perform six tasks to measure sensitivity. This assessment method has successfully been used in a similar sample (Moscardino et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref69">38</reflink>]) and is preferred over available questionnaires due to the characteristics of this sample (e.g., young age of participants, unavailability of parents, children's difficulty in understanding the questionnaire items), which could have negatively affected the completion of other measures. Thus, we investigated environmental sensitivity at a phenotypic level using a series of ad-hoc laboratory procedures specifically designed to be child-friendly and easily applicable in the early years of primary school. All tasks derived from items included in the short form of the HSC scale (Pluess et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref70">49</reflink>]) assessed sensitivity to a variety of contexts, (e.g., response to loud, unpleasant noises and pleasant classical, relaxing music; response to a nice smell and to a bad and strong smell; response when asked to do a lot of things all at once). The child was asked to listen, smell or perform a the task and subsequently was interviewed by the experimenter about their reaction in terms of valence and arousal via the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM, Bradley & Lang, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref71">8</reflink>]), a pictorial rating scale designed to measure an emotional response where higher scores reflect higher arousal (1 = <emph>calm</emph> and 5 = <emph>highly aroused</emph>) and negative valence (1 = <emph>positive emotionality</emph> and 5 = <emph>negative emotionality</emph>). A more detailed description is presented in Moscardino et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref72">38</reflink>]). In the end we obtained four valence scores (i.e., valence emotionality experienced in response to noises, sounds, doing multiple things together and being looked at) and four arousal scores (i.e., arousal experienced in response to noises, sounds, doing multiple things together and being looked at), which in its final form (total score of all the 8 tasks) had adequate internal consistency (α = 0.74).</p> <hd id="AN0181875883-15">Data analyses plan</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181875883-16">Descriptive analysis</hd> <p>The study variables were summarized in frequency tables and figures (frequency for categorical variables, median and Interquartile Range (IQR) for continuous variables). Due to the non-normal marginal distribution of some variables of interest, Wilcoxon and Kruskal-Wallis tests were computed to compare the distribution of continuous variables across the categories of comparison if the variable modalities were two or more than two, respectively. Categorical variables were compared using chi-squared or Fisher's exact test where expected frequencies in any combination were less than 10. Statistical significance was assumed at the 5% level.</p> <hd id="AN0181875883-17">Mixed-effects regression model for SP fixation duration</hd> <p>We tested what factors influenced the SP fixation duration the average fixation dilation at the second pass by employing a mixed-effects regression model in which the regressors were: the AOI type (teacher, children, scene), the number of tests (from test 1 = t1 to test 8 = t8), the environmental sensitivity score and the average pupil dilation measured at baseline. The dependent variable, SP duration, was included using a squared root transformation, in order to meet the normal distribution of the regression residuals. Two-way and three-way interactions were included adopting a forward approach, by means of an analysis of the variance (ANOVA) procedure for repeated measures. Finally, as a random effect, we include the subject in order to keep into account intra-subject variability and as fixed effect confounders the age and the gender of the children. Results were presented using the estimated coefficients and producing their relative 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI). In order the understand the estimated effects we calculated the predicted SP fixation duration by variables of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0181875883-18">Mixed-effects weighted regression model for SP pupil dilatation</hd> <p>Similar to the previous regression model, we tested what factors influenced average fixation dilation at the second pass by employing a mixed-effects regression model in which the regressors were the same as the previous model for duration of fixation: the AOI type (teacher, children, scene), the number of tests (from test 1 = t1 to test 8 = t8), the environmental sensitivity score, and the average pupil dilation measured at baseline. The presence of two-way and three-way interactions was tested by adopting a forward approach, gradually including interactions among the AOI, test type, sensitivity score, by means of an analysis of the variance (ANOVA) procedure for repeated measures. Finally, as a random effect, we include the subject in order to keep into account intra-subject variability and as fixed effect confounders the age and the gender of the children. The weights were the inverse of the variance of the pupil dilation during the fixation. Results were presented using the estimated coefficients and producing their relative 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI). In order the understand the estimated effects we calculated the predicted pupil dilation by variables of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0181875883-19">Results</hd> <p>Looking at the final sample of 87 children, no differences were reported considering the age, environmental sensitivity score, and by gender (all <emph>p</emph> >.05). The number of fixations was homogeneously distributed across the type of tests and the modalities of AOI (<emph>p</emph> >.05). Overall, as described in Table 1, the time spent during the first pass fixation appeared higher during the fixation of the children (average 256.7 ms) with respect to the teacher and scene (average 171.2, 123.3 and 181.2 ms, respectively). In the second passage, the fixation lasted more in the teacher (average 1864 ms) and less in the children (1611 ms) and in the scene (1589 ms). Marginally, the unique difference in the dilation among AOI was observed in the delta average dilation during the second pass (<emph>p</emph> <.001, Table 1). Considering the fragmentation offered by different tests, the average dilation during the second passage differed by AOI considering the tests t1, t2, t4, t5, and t6 (Fig. 2): the delta SP average dilation appeared positively influenced by the fixation of the picture characters (children and teacher), with respect to the scene.</p> <p>Table 1 Fixation duration and pupil dilation by AOI</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Variables<sup>1</sup></p></th><th align="left"><p>Children</p><p>(<italic>n</italic> = 529)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Teacher</p><p>(<italic>n</italic> = 580)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Scene</p><p>(<italic>n</italic> = 558)</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>P</italic>-value<sup>2</sup></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>FP Fixation duration, (msec)</p></td><td align="left"><p>150.0 (250.0)</p></td><td align="left"><p>157.0 (134.0)</p></td><td align="left"><p>140.0 (166.0)</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SP Fixation duration, (msec)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1399 (1485)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1600 (1437)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1400 (1462)</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>FP Average Dilation, (mm)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.87 (0.45)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.86 (0.48)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.86 (0.47)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.98</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Δ FP Average Dilation, (mm)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.035 (0.164)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.031 (0.180)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.022 (0.166)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.63</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SP Average Dilation, (mm)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.88 (0.45)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.89 (0.46)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.87 (0.46)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.20</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Δ SP Average Dilation, (mm)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.055 (0.146)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.037 (0.141)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.010 (0.143)</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups> <emph>1</emph> </sups> <emph>Median (IQR)</emph> <sups> <emph>2</emph> </sups> <emph>Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test</emph> </p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Δ Average Dilation SP distribution by AOI and test. Differences across AOI by test was tested by Kruskal-Wallis test*. Note: p ≥.05, * p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001</p> <p>Considering the results reported by the estimated mixed-effects regression model for SP pupil dilation, we tested the presence of interactions between experimental variables, and two three-way interaction terms were found statistically significant, and they were formed by the type of test and environmental sensitivity (Table 2, ANOVA <emph>p</emph> =.003) and by type of test, environmental sensitivity, and AOI (Table 2, ANOVA <emph>p</emph> =.014). The interpretation of the significant factors and their interactions can be deduced from Fig. 3. Pupil dilation was higher among AOI related to the children, followed by the teacher and lastly the scene. However, this order changed across different test and environmental sensitivity levels with a certain effect considering the tests t2, t5, t7, and t8.</p> <p>Table 2 Analysis of the Variance (ANOVA) for mixed-effects regression model for SP pupil dilation and for SP fixation duration</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>SP pupil dilation</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>SP fixation duration</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Terms</p></th><th align="left"><p>F-Statistic</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>P</italic>-value</p></th><th align="left"><p>F-Statistic</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>P</italic>-value</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Test</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.9</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>< 0.001</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>2.2</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.03</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Environmental sensitivity</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.641</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.85</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>AOI</p></td><td align="left"><p>10.9</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>< 0.001</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>13.4</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>< 0.001</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Pupil dilation at baseline</p></td><td align="left"><p>593.4</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>< 0.001</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Sex</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.608</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.4</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.55</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Age</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.788</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.37</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Test*Environmental sensitivity</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.1</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>< 0.001</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>2.4</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.02</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Test*AOI</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.0</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.015</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>4.8</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>< 0.001</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Environmental sensitivity*AOI</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.7</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.512</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Test*Environmental sensitivity*AOI</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.0</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.014</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Predicted* SP average pupil dilation by the interaction among type of test, environmental sensitivity and AOI (bottom)</p> <p>Taking into account the estimated mixed-effects regression model for SP fixation duration, we tested the presence of interactions between experimental variables, and both two-way interaction terms were found statistically significant, and they were formed by the type of test, and AOI, ANOVA <emph>p</emph> <.001) and by type of test and environmental sensitivity (Table 3, ANOVA <emph>p</emph> =.020). The predicted values of the SP fixation variation considering the two-way interactions term can be found in Fig. 4. Specifically, the moderation effect of the type of test on the slope of the environmental sensitivity: we can denote a broadly positive effect of the environmental sensitivity on the SP fixation duration apart from the test t8 which reported a heavy decreasing trend and of the tests t1, t3, and t5 reporting a flat trend.</p> <p>Table 3 Analysis of the Variance (ANOVA) for mixed-effects regression model for SP pupil dilation and for SP fixation duration</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><tbody><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>SP pupil dilation</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>SP fixation duration</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Terms</p></td><td align="left"><p>F-Statistic</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>P</italic>-value</p></td><td align="left"><p>F-Statistic</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>P</italic>-value</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Test</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.9</p></td><td align="left"><p><.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>.03</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Environmental sensitivity</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>.641</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>.85</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Classroom climate</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.6</p></td><td align="left"><p>.433</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>AOI</p></td><td align="left"><p>10.9</p></td><td align="left"><p><.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>13.4</p></td><td align="left"><p><.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Pupil dilation at baseline</p></td><td align="left"><p>593.4</p></td><td align="left"><p><.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Sex</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>.608</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.4</p></td><td align="left"><p>.55</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Age</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>.788</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>.37</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Test*Environmental sensitivity</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.1</p></td><td align="left"><p><.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.4</p></td><td align="left"><p>.02</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Test*Classroom climate</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.7</p></td><td align="left"><p>.008</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Environmental sensitivity*Classroom climate</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>.756</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Test*AOI</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>.015</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.8</p></td><td align="left"><p><.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Environmental sensitivity*AOI</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.7</p></td><td align="left"><p>.512</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Test*Environmental sensitivity*Classroom climate</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>.003</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Test*Environmental sensitivity*AOI</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>.014</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Predicted* SP fixation duration by interaction of AOI and test (top), and by interaction of test and environmental sensitivity (bottom)</p> <p>The two mixed-effects regression models showed a good adaption of the residuals to the normal distribution, with some departures from the normality only for the SP pupil dilation.</p> <hd id="AN0181875883-20">Discussion</hd> <p>This is the first study investigating student's focus of attention and associated arousal when exposed to different socio-emotional interactions within the classroom, also accounting for children's environmental sensitivity.</p> <p>When looking at attentional patterns in response to teacher-student interactions within the classroom children's gaze did not differ in the first pass, thus indicating that initially children scanned the environment to subsequently go back (second pass) to what was deemed more relevant. When considering second pass duration overall teachers captured and maintained the children's focus of attention for a longer time. Children's less automatic and more intentional processing is directed toward what is perceived as a more relevant source of information. Given the vertical relationship between the teacher and the students it is functional for the spectator child to pay grater attention to the actor of the dyad that is expected to have control and direct the interaction. The teacher is a salient stimulus as she allows the child to make better predictions on what will happen next based on her behavior. Being able to correctly interpret what will happen next (i.e., decrease the levels of uncertainty; Peters et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref73">44</reflink>]) by placing a longer attentional focus on the teacher compared to what happens around her can help the child feel less distressed by a potentially threatening situation (Pendry & Adam, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref74">42</reflink>]). This is coherent with our second finding that shows a greater pupil dilatation in second pass fixation when the participant is looking at the student compared to when the focus is on the teacher. The student might indeed be perceived as more unpredictable and hence cause a greater arousal: the child activates a greater sympathetic response and mobilize energy to be prepared and deal to whatever emotional reaction could be elicited by the student's behavior. Given that placing the focus on the student is more arousing, spending longer second pass fixation time on the teacher might also be interpreted as a way to avoid directing attention toward what elicits greater distress. The child's focus of attention on the teacher was longer in the scenes where she acted in a positive understanding way. Indeed, when looking at what predicted second pass fixations duration a significant interaction emerged between the different scenes and the AOI (i.e., child, teacher, rest of the scene) where the participant focused the attention. The spectator child spent much more time focusing the attention on the teacher when she acted in a positive compassionate way (t5 and t6) especially when in response to the child mildly misbehaving. On the contrary, the shortest fixation durations on the teacher were observed when she acted aggressively. This data is somehow contradictory to the previously reported general tendency of students to be more vigilant towards stimuli that describe frequent academic stressors within their everyday life at school (Scrimin et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref75">56</reflink>]) and that also posits that and over attention allocation is found in response to information that is related to sources of emotional concern (Bar-Haim et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref76">3</reflink>]). However, this might be because in this case the scene is not perceived as static, but as dynamically evolving, and in addition the participant is just a spectator hence the selected attentional behavior is that of avoiding what causes distress.</p> <p>Importantly, biased attention to threat is not always associated with the display of fearful expressions or behaviors in response to cues that might be perceived as threatening as a teacher acting aggressively or a classmate acting in an unexpected way (LoBue, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref77">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Interestingly, the duration of the second pass fixations was moderated by children's individual characteristics. A significant interaction was found between the specific scene and the children environmental sensitivity. When looking at scenes with children acting out (behaving more aggressively) in response to the teacher, a significant change was found in the duration of the fixations based on the participants' environmental sensitivity. More sensitive children focused less attention compared with less sensitive one on the scene when not only the child but also the teacher behaved aggressively. That is when the student in the scene behaved only mildly badly by talking and getting distracted during the lesson and as a consequence both the teacher and the student respond in a negative aggressive way more sensitive children avoided long fixations whereas less sensitive ones were captured by the scene and showed longer fixation times. This scene can be perceived as overall highly distressing as the initial situation does not justify a strong aggressive reaction by the teacher and the student. This might bring more sensitive children to avoid looking at the scene as it is perceived as to distressing while less sensitive ones keep their attention for longer times to monitor the situation. Interestingly, the opposite happens when, in the same scene, the teacher acts in a compassionate way. That is, in this case more sensitive children look more at the scene while less sensitive one seam more distracted. Thus, more sensitive children avoid a potentially threatening teacher while focusing on a caring one. On the contrary less sensitive children's attention is captured by a more harsh, stern teacher's behavior more than by a kind one. This data is coherent with what emerged from the model predicting pupil dilatation. The significant interaction between scene, AOI (i.e., teacher, child and rest of the scene) and environmental sensitivity showed that when looking at the teacher highly sensitive children overall displayed a greater arousal (i.e., grater pupil dilatation) compared with less sensitive children that had a weaker sympathetic response. This pattern was particularly evident in the scenes following a very disrespectful child behavior, that is when the child was standing on his desk acting silly (e.g., scenes 1 and 4). Children's environmental sensitivity however significantly interacted with AOI only in scene eight, that is when both the child and the teacher acted aggressively in response to an only mildly incorrect behavior (i.e., chatting with the classmate). In this case, environmental sensitivity had almost no effect on the link between the AOI representing the child and the level of arousal as the slope was mostly flat. Differently, when looking at the teacher highly sensitive children where much more aroused compared with less sensitive ones. This might suggest that when attending to an unsettling socio emotional student-teacher interaction, that sees displayed aggressive behaviors that are not completely justified by the initial action sensitive children feel much more threatened by the adult compared with less sensitive ones.</p> <p>Adapting to a complex and dynamic environment such as the one encountered at school requires the ability to pay attention to an ongoing task and, at the same time, decide whether to focus attention to incoming stimuli that are not relevant for that task but that might be perceived as socio-emotionally salient. Our data bring some evidence on how proactive, top–down attentional mechanisms, that are deployed in class to maintain cognitive resources the task at hand, can be significantly impaired by the occurrence within the classroom of potentially unsettling socio emotional student teacher dynamics. Such interactions elicit reactive, bottom–up attentional processes driven stimuli that are perceived as emotionally salient. Several studies have shown how top–down and bottom–up mechanisms mutually influence each other in a highly conditional way (Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref78">31</reflink>]; Pessoa et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref79">43</reflink>]), hence how the child respond to such emotional interaction can indeed affect the sovra-ordinate attentional processes.</p> <p>The present study is not free form limitations. First the limited number of participants prevented us to consider other possible individual characteristics or environmental factors which might have helped to better interpret the data. Furthermore, the experimental design while controlling for several factors by presenting multiple balanced scenes is not ecological and this prevents us from generalized our findings to a more natural setting.</p> <p>Despite further studies are needed to better understand the attentional process and emotional activation elicited in passive spectators of classroom interactions, the present study gives some preliminary important information for both research and practice. Specifically, initial evidence is given of the power of teacher-student interactions, especially when emotionally threatening or unsettling because characterized by unexpected or unpredictable behaviors to cause a biased attentional pattern and cause a sympathetic activation. Moreover, evidence is brought to the importance of children's environmental sensitivity and precious perceived experiences within similar environments when exposed to such salient socio-emotional interactions.</p> <p>In relation to educational practices and school policies, a first important message that can be derived from these finding is the confirmation of the important role played by the teacher within the classroom. Despite what is going on around them, students' overall focus of attention is mostly on the teacher. This is a positive factor as it shows how primary school students relay on the adult that is expected to have control and direct the interaction. This also implies that teachers should be made aware of how strongly their behavior captures students' attention also when not explicitly directed toward all the class but just to a specific child. More importantly, as also reported by previous studies (Brown et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref80">9</reflink>]), schools might benefit from programs supporting teachers' emotion regulation skills and well-being. Indeed, when teachers act in an emotionally regulated, positive, and understanding way (for example through positive reinforcement), they attract students' attention, whereas, when they behave aggressively (for example through punishment), children's level of arousal increase, and it is difficult for them to remain focused on the task.</p> <p>As previously documented by the stress literature (Pendry & Adam, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref81">42</reflink>]), students' pupil dilatation showed how being able to know what happens next decreases the level of distress of the child. Hence, another important set of interventions should increase the degree of reciprocal knowledge among students. Students' unexpected behaviors cause an increase in arousal which also captures their attention on the bystanders. Knowing each other better (for example in terms of strength and difficulties) can help anticipate how classmates will behave or respond to a specific environmental cue, lowering distress levels and facilitating the remanence of the focus on the task. Overall, interventions should promote emotionally positive and in-tune teacher-student interactions to avoid students' distraction and sympathetic arousal. This is particularly true for more environmentally sensitive students. School personnel should be made aware of the role of individual characteristics of each child. This is useful to emphasize the importance of focusing on each child in order to adjust the interaction adequately, in terms also of non-verbal behaviors.</p> <p>To conclude, school policies should be directed toward the implementation of prevention programs aiming at supporting positive classroom climate. Even more important, teachers should be aware of how their behavior might affect not just the child they are interacting with but also the rest of the classroom. Hence, support to teachers should be given in order to help them to favor a compassionate and supportive behaviors toward their students as opposed to a more judging and aggressive one as this can be extremely relevant to help student focus on task and not get distracted by potentially threatening and unsettling emotionally salient events taking place in class.</p> <hd id="AN0181875883-21">Funding</hd> <p>This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.</p> <hd id="AN0181875883-22">Data availability</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.</p> <hd id="AN0181875883-23">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181875883-24">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0181875883-25">Electronic Supplementary Material</hd> <p>Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary Material 1</p> <hd id="AN0181875883-26">Publisher's note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0181875883-27"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref22" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ariasi N, Mason L. Uncovering the effect of text structure in learning from a science text: An eye-tracking study. Instructional Science. 2011; 39: 581-601. 10.1007/s11251-010-9142-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref37" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aron EN, Aron A, Jagiellowicz J. Sensory processing sensitivity: A review in the light of the evolution of biological responsivity. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2012; 16; 3: 262-282. 10.1177/1088868311434213</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref66" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bar-Haim Y, Lamy D, Pergamin L, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Van Ijzendoorn MH. Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: A meta-analytic study. Psychological Bulletin. 2007; 133; 1: 1-24. 10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref51" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Belsky J, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Van IJzendoorn MH. For better and for worse: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2007; 16; 6: 300-304. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00525.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref35" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Belsky J, Pluess M. Beyond diathesis stress: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin. 2009; 135; 6: 885-908. 10.1037/a0017376</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref46" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Booth C, Standage H, Fox E. Sensory-processing sensitivity moderates the association between childhood experiences and adult life satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015; 87: 24-29. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref43" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Boterberg S, Warreyn P. Making sense of it all: The impact of sensory processing sensitivity on daily functioning of children. Personality and Individual Differences. 2016; 92: 80-86. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref71" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bradley, M. M, & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref80" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, J. L, Jennings, P. A, Rasheed, D. S, Cham, H, Doyle, S. L, Frank, J. L, & Greenberg, M. T. (2023). Direct and moderating impacts of the CARE mindfulness-based professional learning program for teachers on children's academic and social-emotional outcomes. Applied Developmental Science, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2023.2268327</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buckner JD, Maner JK, Schmidt NB. Difficulty disengaging attention from social threat in social anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2010; 34; 1: 99-105. 10.1007/s10608-008-9205-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Callaghan M, Kelly C, Molcho M. Bullying and bystander behaviour and health outcomes among adolescents in Ireland. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 2019; 73; 5: 416-421. 10.1136/jech-2018-211350</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Calvo MG, Nummenmaa L. Detection of emotional faces: Salient physical features guide effective visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2008; 137; 3: 471-494. 10.1037/a0012771</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chun MM, Turk-Browne NB. Interactions between attention and memory. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 2007; 17; 2: 177-184. 10.1016/j.conb.2007.03.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crick, N. R, & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dean EE, Little L, Tomchek S, Dunn W. Sensory processing in the general population: Adaptability, resiliency, and challenging behavior. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2018; 72; 1: 7201195060p1-7201195060p8. 10.5014/ajot.2018.019919</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Decety J, Michalska KJ, Kinzler KD. The contribution of emotion and cognition to moral sensitivity: A neurodevelopmental study. Cerebral Cortex. 2012; 22; 1: 209-220. 10.1093/cercor/bhr111</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliot AJ. The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motivation and Emotion. 2006; 30: 111-116. 10.1007/s11031-006-9028-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Escera C, Alho K, Schröger E, Winkler IW. Involuntary attention and distractibility as evaluated with event-related brain potentials. Audiology and Neurotology. 2000; 5; 3–4: 151-166. 10.1159/000013877</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frischen A, Bayliss AP, Tipper SP. Gaze cueing of attention: Visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences. Psychological Bulletin. 2007; 133; 4: 694-724. 10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.694</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greven, C. U, Lionetti, F, Booth, C, Aron, E. N, Fox, E, Schendan, H. E, Pluess, M, Bruining, H, Acevedo, B, Bijttebier, P, & Homberg, J. (2019). Sensory processing sensitivity in the context of environmental sensitivity: A critical review and development of research agenda. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 98, 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.01.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gross, J. J. (1999). Emotion regulation: Past, present, future. Cognition & Emotion, 13(5), 551–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999399379186</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gross, J. J, & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotional regulation: Conceptual foundations. In J. J. Gross, J. James, R. A. Thompson, & A. Ross (Eds.), Handbook of emotion regulation. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hajovsky, D. B, Mason, B. A, & McCune, L. A. (2017). Teacher-student relationship quality and academic achievement in elementary school: A longitudinal examination of gender differences. Journal of School Psychology, 63, 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.04.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hepach R. Prosocial arousal in children. Child Development Perspectives. 2017; 11; 1: 50-55. 10.1111/cdep.12209</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hessels AJ, Paliwal M, Weaver SH, Siddiqui D, Wurmser TA. Impact of Patient Safety Culture on missed nursing care and adverse patient events. Journal of Nursing Care Quality. 2019; 34; 4: 287-294. 10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000378</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyönä, J, Lorch Jr, R. F, & Rinck, M. (2003). Eye movement measures to study global text processing. In The mind's eye (pp. 313–334). North-Holland.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyönä, J, Lorch Jr, R. F, & Kaakinen, J. K. (2002). Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: Evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.44</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyönä J, Nurminen AM. Do adult readers know how they read? Evidence from eye movement patterns and verbal reports. British Journal of Psychology. 2006; 97; 1: 31-50. 10.1348/000712605X53678</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jerome EM, Hamre BK, Pianta RC. Teacher–child relationships from kindergarten to sixth grade: Early childhood predictors of teacher-perceived conflict and closeness. Social Development. 2009; 18; 4: 915-945. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00508.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joshi S, Li Y, Kalwani RM, Gold JI. Relationships between Pupil Diameter and neuronal activity in the Locus Coeruleus, Colliculi, and Cingulate Cortex. Neuron. 2016; 89; 1: 221-234. 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.11.028</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, H, Somerville, L. H, Johnstone, T, Polis, S, Alexander, A. L, Shin, L. M, & Whalen, P. J. (2004). Contextual modulation of amygdala responsivity to surprised faces. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(10), 1730–1745. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929042947865</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koole SL. The psychology of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Cognition and Emotion. 2009; 23; 1: 4-41. 10.1080/02699930802619031</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laidlaw KE, Foulsham T, Kuhn G, Kingstone A. Potential social interactions are important to social attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2011; 108; 14: 5548-5553. 10.1073/pnas.1017022108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lionetti F, Aron A, Aron EN, Burns GL, Jagiellowicz J, Pluess M. Dandelions, tulips and orchids: Evidence for the existence of low-sensitive, medium-sensitive and high-sensitive individuals. Translational Psychiatry. 2018; 8; 24: 1-11. 10.1038/s41398-017-0090-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu Y, Rodenkirch C, Moskowitz N, Schriver B, Wang Q. Dynamic lateralization of Pupil Dilation evoked by Locus Coeruleus activation results from sympathetic, not parasympathetic, contributions. Cell Reports. 2017; 20; 13: 3099-3112. 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.08.094</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LoBue V. What are we so afraid of? How early attention shapes our most common fears. Child Development Perspectives. 2013; 7; 1: 38-42. 10.1111/cdep.12012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Monroe, S. M, & Simons, A. D. (1991). Diathesis-stress theories in the context of life stress research: Implications for the depressive disorders. Psychological Bulletin, 110(3), 406–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.3.406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moscardino U, Scrimin S, Lionetti F, Pluess M. Environmental sensitivity and cardiac vagal tone as moderators of the relationship between family support and well-being in low SES children: An exploratory study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2021; 38; 9: 2772-2791. 10.1177/026540752110211</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy PR, O'Connell RG, O'Sullivan M, Robertson IH, Balsters JH. Pupil diameter covaries with BOLD activity in human locus coeruleus. Human Brain Mapping. 2014; 35; 8: 4140-4154. 10.1002/hbm.22466</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nocentini A, Menesini E, Pluess M. The personality trait of environmental sensitivity predicts children's positive response to school-based antibullying intervention. Clinical Psychological Science. 2018; 6; 6: 848-859. 10.1177/216770261878219</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pallini, S, Vecchio, G. M, Baiocco, R, Schneider, B. H, & Laghi, F. (2019). Student–teacher relationships and attention problems in school-aged children: The mediating role of emotion regulation. School Mental Health, 11(2), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-018-9286-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pendry P, Adam EK. Associations between parents' marital functioning, maternal parenting quality, maternal emotion and child cortisol levels. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2007; 31; 3: 218-231. 10.1177/0165025407074634</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pessoa L, Padmala S, Morland T. Fate of unattended fearful faces in the amygdala is determined by both attentional resources and cognitive modulation. Neuroimage. 2005; 28; 1: 249-255. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.05.048</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peters A, McEwen BS, Friston K. Uncertainty and stress: Why it causes diseases and how it is mastered by the brain. Progress in Neurobiology. 2017; 156: 164-188. 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2017.05.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pieters, R, & Wedel, M. (2004). Attention capture and transfer in advertising: Brand, pictorial, and text-size effects. Journal of Marketing, 68(2), 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.2.36.27794</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pluess M. Individual differences in environmental sensitivity. Child Developmental Perspective. 2015; 9; 3: 138-143. 10.1111/cdep.12120</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pluess M, Belsky J. Vantage sensitivity: Individual differences in response to positive experiences. Psychological Bulletin. 2013; 139; 4: 901-916. 10.1037/a0030196</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pluess M, Boniwell I. Sensory-processing sensitivity predicts treatment response to a school-based depression prevention program: Evidence of vantage sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015; 82: 40-45. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pluess, M, Assary, E, Lionetti, F, Lester, K. J, Krapohl, E, Aron, E. N, & Aron, A. (2018). Environmental sensitivity in children: Development of the highly sensitive child scale and identification of sensitivity groups. Developmental Psychology, 54(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prewett SL, Bergin DA, Huang FL. Student and teacher perceptions on student-teacher relationship quality: A middle school perspective. School Psychology International. 2019; 40; 1: 66-87. 10.1177/0143034318807743</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Price RB, Siegle GJ, Silk JS, Ladouceur C, McFarland A, Dahl RE, Ryan ND. Sustained neural alterations in anxious youth performing an attentional bias task: A pupilometry study. Depression and Anxiety. 2013; 30; 1: 22-30. 10.1002/da.21966</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Racer KH, Dishion TJ. Disordered attention: Implications for understanding and treating Internalizing and Externalizing disorders in Childhood. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice. 2012; 19; 1: 31-40. 10.1016/j.cbpra.2010.06.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reynolds S, Lane SJ, Thacker L. Sensory processing, physiological stress, and sleep behaviors in children with and without autism spectrum disorders. OTJR: Occupation Participation and Health. 2012; 32; 1: 246-257. 10.3928/15394492-20110513-02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saltzman, K. M, Holden, G. W, & Holahan, C. J. (2005). The psychobiology of children exposed to marital violence. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(1), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scrimin S, Altoè G, Moscardino U, Pastore M, Mason L. Individual differences in emotional reactivity and academic achievement: A psychophysiological study. Mind Brain and Education. 2016; 10; 1: 34-46. 10.1111/mbe.12097</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scrimin S, Moscardino U, Altoè G, Mason L. Effects of perceived school well-being and negative emotionality on students' attentional bias for academic stressors. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2016; 86; 2: 278-295. 10.1111/bjep.12104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scrimin S, Moscardino U, Mason L. First-graders' allocation of attentional resources in an emotional Stroop task: The role of heart period variability and classroom climate. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2019; 89; 1: 146-164. 10.1111/bjep.12228</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scrimin S, Osler G, Pozzoli T, Moscardino U. Early adversities, family support, and child well-being: The moderating role of environmental sensitivity. Child: Care Health and Development. 2018; 44; 6: 885-891. 10.1111/cch.12596</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silk JS, Dahl RE, Ryan ND, Forbes EE, Axelson DA, Birmaher B, Siegle GJ. Pupillary reactivity to emotional information in child and adolescent depression: Links to clinical and ecological measures. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2007; 164; 12: 1873-1880. 10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.06111816</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slagt M, Dubas JS, van Aken MA, Ellis BJ, Deković M. Sensory processing sensitivity as a marker of differential susceptibility to parenting. Developmental Psychology. 2018; 54; 3: 543-558. 10.1037/dev0000431</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thayer, J. F, & Lane, R. D. (2000). A model of neurovisceral integration in emotion regulation and dysregulation. Journal of Affective Disorders, 61(3), 201–216.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0327(00)00338-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zee M, de Jong PF, Koomen HM. From externalizing student behavior to student-specific teacher self-efficacy: The role of teacher-perceived conflict and closeness in the student–teacher relationship. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2017; 51: 37-50. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.06.009</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Sara Scrimin Sara Scrimin PhD, is Associate Professor of Developmental Psychology at the University of Padova, Italy. Her research interests are situated in the fields of the effect of emotional and environmental sources of stress on development with a particular attention on the role of physiological regulation.</p> <p>Paolo Girardi Paolo Girardi is an Assistant Professor of Statistics at Ca' Foscari University of Venice, Italy. His research interests are mainly related to advances in statistical methods for functional data analysis, clustering and causal inference. The related publications cover a wide range of applications in medicine, epidemiology, psychology and environmental sciences.</p> <p>Libera Ylenia Mastromatteo Libera Ylenia Mastromatteo PhD, is Post-doctoral Research Fellow at the University of Padova. Her main research interests focus on the effects of biological, individual and environmental factors on children's adjustment, with a specific attention on the physiological underpinnings of children's adjustment.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref79"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1454319
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Sensitive Children's Attention and Emotional Response to Student-Teacher Interactions
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sara+Scrimin%22">Sara Scrimin</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6290-322X">0000-0001-6290-322X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Paolo+Girardi%22">Paolo Girardi</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Libera+Ylenia+Mastromatteo%22">Libera Ylenia Mastromatteo</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Social+Psychology+of+Education%3A+An+International+Journal%22"><i>Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 28(1).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Characteristics%22">Student Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attention%22">Attention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Response%22">Emotional Response</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Arousal+Patterns%22">Arousal Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Environment%22">Educational Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Development%22">Emotional Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Development%22">Social Development</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11218-024-09971-7
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1381-2890<br />1573-1928
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Student-teacher interactions capture bystanders' attention causing an emotional arousal that takes away the focus of attention form the assigned task. To assess attentional and emotional response to socio-emotional interactions within the classroom, student's eye movement and dilatation were registered while investigating children's environmental sensitivity. Primary school children's pupil response (n = 95) while watching different interaction scenes were registered. Children self-reported on environmental sensitivity. Two mixed-effects regression models for pupil fixation durations and dilatation showed that students' attention was captured more by the teacher yet the focus on the student caused grater arousal. The association between emotional arousal and focus of attention was moderated by students' environmental sensitivity with incongruent socio-emotional exchanges causing grater emotional arousal in highly sensitive children compared to low sensitive ones. Intervention should promote emotionally positive and in-tune teacher-student interactions to avoid students' distraction and sympathetic arousal, especially in more environmentally sensitive students.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1454319
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1454319
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11218-024-09971-7
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Student Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emotional Response
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Arousal Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emotional Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Development
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Sensitive Children's Attention and Emotional Response to Student-Teacher Interactions
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sara Scrimin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Paolo Girardi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Libera Ylenia Mastromatteo
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1381-2890
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1928
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 28
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1