Reflexive Priority of Biological Motion in Attentional Orienting: Evidence from Conflict Resistance in Complex Visual Settings
Saved in:
| Title: | Reflexive Priority of Biological Motion in Attentional Orienting: Evidence from Conflict Resistance in Complex Visual Settings |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Xinyi Huang, Shujia Zhang, Li Wang (ORCID |
| Source: | Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications. 2026 11. |
| 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 |
| Page Count: | 17 |
| Publication Date: | 2026 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Attention, Biology, Motion, Physical Activities, Eye Movements, Adjustment (to Environment), Cues, Conflict, Resistance (Psychology), Interference (Learning), Interpersonal Relationship |
| DOI: | 10.1186/s41235-026-00721-1 |
| ISSN: | 2365-7464 |
| Abstract: | Humans involuntarily orient their attention to walking direction of biological motion (BM), a crucial skill for adaptive survival and social interaction. While previous studies have been limited to isolated BM displays, real-world scenarios typically include BM alongside multiple competing stimuli, hampering the translation of laboratory insights into practical applications. Here, we introduced simultaneously presented BM cues and other social (eye gaze) or nonsocial (arrow) cues into a modified central cueing paradigm, reassessing the reflexive nature of BM-induced attention from the perspective of conflict resistance. Results showed that the attentional orienting elicited by BM was robust enough to resist interference from peripheral arrows throughout the task yet interfered with central arrow processing. This unique asymmetric interference effect highlights the reflexive priority of BM over nonsocial cues. Additionally, mutual interference between BM and eye gaze suggests that different types of social cues trigger attentional shifts with a considerable degree of reflexivity. Based on an interference-resilient criterion, these findings together imply that social attention is supported by a specialized mechanism shared across various social but not nonsocial cues. This mechanism potentially enables us to instinctively prioritize and orient toward social signals amid competing nonsocial cues in complex real-world settings, with direct implications for designing signaling systems in safety-critical contexts and developing early diagnostic tools for sociocognitive disorders such as autism. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Notes: | https://doi.org/10.57760/sciencedb.18066 |
| Entry Date: | 20260101 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1513232 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFNfhxhrPfntsxuNan3X-MJAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNi6EXDfl-173YJaSAIBEICBmjTgzFbRtUxPjv9tPgHkxmSo7JwOBYzOfSodBw12kyCVwXxQplRnIk9wW7-79GU8Cdaw59s8r__YQ4wuA5M3vv9nEIyuFgO35YQKa3oucK3kClZMh1iRf3kUwgTbUmsYbl2Tky-qPmJ-O02os3xnZc-2xpV5f_rKYTpLW2jytl-odrl8VzFbMahFsh1FF3mBibQ3WChJIr4FdQ0= Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0192430102;[k1e6]22mar.26;2026Mar24.03:48;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0192430102-1">Reflexive priority of biological motion in attentional orienting: evidence from conflict resistance in complex visual settings </title> <p>Humans involuntarily orient their attention to walking direction of biological motion (BM), a crucial skill for adaptive survival and social interaction. While previous studies have been limited to isolated BM displays, real-world scenarios typically include BM alongside multiple competing stimuli, hampering the translation of laboratory insights into practical applications. Here, we introduced simultaneously presented BM cues and other social (eye gaze) or nonsocial (arrow) cues into a modified central cueing paradigm, reassessing the reflexive nature of BM-induced attention from the perspective of conflict resistance. Results showed that the attentional orienting elicited by BM was robust enough to resist interference from peripheral arrows throughout the task yet interfered with central arrow processing. This unique asymmetric interference effect highlights the reflexive priority of BM over nonsocial cues. Additionally, mutual interference between BM and eye gaze suggests that different types of social cues trigger attentional shifts with a considerable degree of reflexivity. Based on an interference-resilient criterion, these findings together imply that social attention is supported by a specialized mechanism shared across various social but not nonsocial cues. This mechanism potentially enables us to instinctively prioritize and orient toward social signals amid competing nonsocial cues in complex real-world settings, with direct implications for designing signaling systems in safety–critical contexts and developing early diagnostic tools for sociocognitive disorders such as autism.</p> <p>Significance statement: Humans possess an innate ability to direct their attention to walking direction of biological motion (BM), which plays an essential role in adaptive functioning and interpersonal interaction. Traditional studies concerning such fundamental capacity have relied on simplified paradigms with isolated cues, neglecting the fact that real life is crowded with multiple directional cues where efficient attentional orienting can be a matter of safety. The current study uncovers, for the first time, that this attentional orienting triggered by BM is reflexive enough to withstand conflict from concurrently presented nonsocial cues (i.e., arrow) and even to progressively affect their processing. Together with the rapid interference observed between social cues (i.e., BM and eye gaze), these findings shed light on a shared mechanism specialized for social but not nonsocial attention, broadening the understanding of how humans instinctively prioritize social signals in the complicated real world. Beyond theoretical insights, this work is highly relevant for advancing designs of attentional guidance systems in human–computer interface or safety-critical settings, and offers ecologically valid approaches to early autism diagnosis.</p> <p>Keywords: Biological motion; Social attention; Eye gaze; Reflexive; Conflict; Psychology and Cognitive Sciences Psychology</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-2">Introduction</hd> <p>As social beings in the bustling world, we instinctively shift our attention toward the walking direction of those passing by. This automatic orientation to walking direction of biological motion (BM) likely evolved because it conveys critical information about others' intentions, which is indispensable for human survival (e.g., timely responses to social opportunities or potential threats) and interpersonal interactions (Blake &amp; Shiffrar, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref1">7</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref2">80</reflink>]). It is well documented that we possess a remarkable ability to effortlessly and precisely discern walking direction, even when BM cues are presented as only a dozen point-light dots attached to the head and major joints of the body (Johansson, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref3">41</reflink>]; Troje, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref4">72</reflink>]) and embedded in dynamic visual noise (Hirai et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref5">37</reflink>]; Troje &amp; Westhoff, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref6">73</reflink>]) or presented in peripheral vision (Thompson et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref7">68</reflink>]). Crucially, this heightened sensitivity to walking direction of BM extends beyond mere perception and further affects behavioral responses. Previous studies have consistently demonstrated that walking direction of point-light BM can trigger reflexive attentional orienting (Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref8">47</reflink>]; Shi et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref9">65</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref10">80</reflink>]; Yu et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref11">84</reflink>]). Specifically, despite being explicitly informed that walking direction is nonpredictive of the upcoming target location, observers still orient their visuospatial attention accordingly, leading to faster responses to targets appearing on the side signaled by BM cues. Such attentional orienting can be induced by local BM signals lacking global configuration, including cases where only the motion of the feet is displayed and observers are unaware of its biological nature (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref12">81</reflink>]). Interestingly, BM-induced attentional orienting behavior emerges early in life, observed in preschool children (Zhao et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref13">88</reflink>]) and infants as young as 3–6 months old (Bardi et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>]; Lunghi et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref15">51</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref16">50</reflink>]; Richards, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref17">58</reflink>]). In brief, these behavioral and developmental studies suggest that walking direction of BM is similar to eye gaze, a widely recognized social signal. Both serve as powerful central directional cues capable of reflexively orienting our attention toward others' focus to facilitate social interaction and coordinate adaptive behavior (Driver et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref18">17</reflink>]; Friesen &amp; Kingstone, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref19">22</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref20">23</reflink>]; Ristic et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref21">60</reflink>]; Yuan et al., [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref22">86</reflink>]), a phenomenon known as social attention (Birmingham &amp; Kingstone, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref23">6</reflink>]; Frischen et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref24">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>Previous studies concerning attentional orienting induced by walking direction of BM have primarily employed single BM as central cues (Bardi et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref25">3</reflink>]; Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref26">47</reflink>]; Lunghi et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref27">50</reflink>]; Shi et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref28">65</reflink>]). However, throughout daily life, we are commonly exposed to complex scenes bombarded with a multitude of stimuli, which can lead to conflicts between BM and other directional cues. For instance, when wayfinding in crowded transportation hubs (e.g., airports or train stations), we often find ourselves in a situation where the flow of pedestrians, the divergent glances of others, and numerous signage all vie for our attention. Such conflicts of multiple cues become particularly critical in high-speed driving, incident response, emergency rescue, or chaotic situations (e.g., panic or rioting), where distraction or misdirected attention could lead to severe, even life-to-death outcomes (Hinton et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref29">36</reflink>]; Sundfør et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref30">67</reflink>]; van Harten et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref31">76</reflink>]). Emergency evacuations exemplify such scenarios: we must rapidly reconcile conflicting directional information when some individuals move along one path while arrow signs indicate alternative routes. This real-world complexity necessitates a reassessment of the reflexivity of BM-induced attentional orienting observed in laboratories with isolated-cue displays: Is such attentional orienting reflexive enough to resist interference from conflicting directional cues? Moreover, a defining criterion for an automatic process is its resistance to interference from other processes while retaining the capacity to interfere with them (Besner et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref32">5</reflink>]), raising the question of whether BM stimuli can modulate attentional shifts toward other cues. In sum, deciphering how we respond to BM signals in conflict situations could not only contribute to better measurement of the reflexivity of social attention in more real-world settings, but also directly inform practical applications in safety–critical signaling, navigation design, and human–computer interaction where rapid attentional orienting amid visual clutter is essential.</p> <p>Nevertheless, to our knowledge, no studies to date have addressed the attentional orienting induced by simultaneously perceived and conflicting BM signals alongside other cues. Broadening the scope of cue types, only a few studies explored attentional orienting when eye gaze and arrow cues were presented concurrently (Besner et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref33">4</reflink>]; Nummenmaa &amp; Hietanen, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref34">55</reflink>]) and provided mixed evidence. In the dual-cue paradigm adopted by these studies, both cues were presented simultaneously with 50% validity (nonpredictive), and interference effects were defined as the reduction or elimination of attentional effect triggered by the central cue when it was paired with a simultaneous, oppositely oriented cue (e.g., in the periphery). One study (Nummenmaa &amp; Hietanen, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref35">55</reflink>]) reported mutual and comparable interference effects between these two cues, while another study (Besner et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref36">4</reflink>]) showed that arrow cues were resistant to interference from eye gaze. However, these findings diverge from those observed in isolated-cue conditions, where gaze elicits stronger reflexive attentional orienting compared to arrows (Friesen et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref37">24</reflink>]; Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref38">47</reflink>]; Ristic et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref39">60</reflink>]). Such a discrepancy may arise from the use of arrow cues in a single schematic face or a face-like circle, potentially disrupting the intact perception of eye gaze (Fan et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref40">20</reflink>]). Additionally, the perceptual similarity between gaze and arrow cues in their directional information transmission (Gibson &amp; Kingstone, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref41">28</reflink>]) brings inherent challenges for distinguishing their respective attentional mechanisms. It is thus important to introduce BM, a distinctively different yet potent social cue, into conflict settings to enable an indirect comparison of eye gaze and arrow cues through their respective interference effects on BM. Furthermore, the simultaneous presentation of BM along with these two typical cues (i.e., arrow, eye gaze) could offer a novel perspective on whether BM-induced social attention relies on specialized mechanisms that are functionally distinct from those engaged by nonsocial attention, and whether it shares common mechanisms with gaze-induced social attention. This may help clarify the long-standing debate regarding the distinctiveness of social attention (Callejas et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref42">10</reflink>]; Friesen et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref43">24</reflink>]; Lockhofen et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref44">48</reflink>]; Singh et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref45">66</reflink>]; Tipples, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref46">71</reflink>]; Uono et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref47">74</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref48">80</reflink>]), which highly relevant to interface design and signaling applications.</p> <p>Therefore, the present study aimed to further probe into the attentional processing mechanisms when BM cues were presented centrally or peripherally and conflicting with nonsocial cues (arrows: Experiments 1–3 and 6) and other social cues (eye gaze: Experiments 4–5). Based on a modified central cueing task (Friesen &amp; Kingstone, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref49">22</reflink>]) which has been widely employed to measure attentional effects (Joseph et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref50">42</reflink>]; Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref51">47</reflink>]; Shi et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref52">65</reflink>]), participants were instructed to localize horizontally presented targets. These targets were preceded by combined yet independent cues, which are both nonpredictive regarding target location. Additionally, this study incorporates more trials per condition than previous research (Lockhofen et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref53">48</reflink>]; Nummenmaa &amp; Hietanen, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref54">55</reflink>]; Shi et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref55">65</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref56">80</reflink>]) to further explore the temporal dynamics of processing conflicting stimuli over trials.</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-3">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0192430102-4">Participants</hd> <p>A total of 120 graduate and undergraduate students aged 18 to 28 years (<emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SD</emph> = 23.09 ± 2.64) took part in the study. Each experiment included 20 participants (12 females in each of Experiments 1 to 5 and 11 females in Experiment 6). The sample size was determined by a prior power analysis utilizing G*Power 3.1.9.7 (Faul et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref57">21</reflink>]) for a within-subject analysis of variance (ANOVA), which indicated that 18 participants would afford 80% power for a 2 × 2 interaction with a medium effect size (<emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.08; Besner et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref58">4</reflink>]). All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and were naïve to the purpose of the experiments. They all gave written, informed consent before the experiment.</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-5">Apparatus and stimuli</hd> <p>Stimuli were generated and displayed using MATLAB (Mathworks, Inc.) together with the Psychophysics Toolbox extensions (Brainard, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref59">9</reflink>]; Pelli, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref60">56</reflink>]) on a 19-in. CRT monitor (1280 × 1024 at 60 Hz). All stimuli were presented on a gray background (52.4 cd/m<sups>2</sups>) at a viewing distance of approximately 57 cm.</p> <p>BM stimuli for all experiments were adopted from Vanrie and Verfaillie ([<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref61">78</reflink>]), which were created by capturing the motion of a walking actor. These 3D motion capture coordinates were further rotated in depth and projected onto a 2D plane for display. Each BM sequence consisted of 13 white (108.5 cd/m<sups>2</sups>) point-light dots depicting the motions of the head and major joints (shoulders, elbows, wrists, hips, knees, and ankles), walking either leftward or rightward without any overall translational motion. Such a format systematically eliminated contour, texture, and depth information to isolate pure kinematic information from moving joints (Troje, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref62">72</reflink>]; Vanrie &amp; Verfaillie, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref63">78</reflink>]). In line with the original recording (Vanrie &amp; Verfaillie, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref64">78</reflink>]) and standard practice (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref65">80</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref66">82</reflink>]), a complete gait cycle was 1 s and contained 30 frames (33.3 ms/frame). The initial frame of BM stimuli was randomized for each trial to avoid participants' prediction. In Experiments 1, 2, 3, and 6, a two-tailed point-light arrow was employed to better match the physical characteristics of the BM (e.g., dots' number, size, and brightness). In Experiments 4 and 5, a neutral face image with gaze averted to the left or right was adapted from Ekman and Friesen's facial expression image library (Ekman &amp; Friesen, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref67">18</reflink>]). The image was cropped to eliminate features outside of the face (e.g., ears and hair). Moreover, the position of irises and pupils of the eyes was shifted to the canthi using Adobe Photoshop software, creating distinct leftward and rightward gaze cues (see Fig. 2). For each gaze direction (left or right), the angular deviation of the gaze from the center was kept consistent across trials.</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-6">Design and procedure</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0192430102-7">Experiment 1</hd> <p>The experiment used a 2 (cue validity: valid vs. invalid) × 2 (direction congruency: congruent vs. incongruent) within-subject design. Cue validity was defined by whether the central cue indicated the same (valid) or opposite (invalid) side as the target appeared, while direction congruency referred to whether the direction of central cues was aligned with (congruent) or opposite to (incongruent) the direction of peripheral cues.</p> <p>Each trial began with fixation on a central cross (0.5° × 0.5°) within a frame (17.0° × 17.0°) that extended beyond the outer edge of the stimuli. After 1,000 ms, a point-light BM cue (3.2° × 5.7°) was superimposed on the central cross, together with a two-tailed arrow cue (2.4° × 1.3°) presented vertically 4.3° above or below the central cross. All stimuli were displayed simultaneously for 500 ms. After a 100-ms interstimulus interval (ISI), a small Gabor patch (1.1° × 1.1°) was briefly (100 ms) presented as a target on the left or right side of the fixation, 4.2° from the central cross. Participants were asked to press one of two arrow keys on a standard keyboard to indicate target location (left arrow key for left target and vice versa), as quickly as possible without compromising accuracy (see Fig. 1).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of a single trial in Experiments 1, 2, 3, and 6. In Experiment 1, each trial began with a fixation lasting 1000 ms, followed by the simultaneous presentation of a central BM cue and a peripheral arrow cue (500 ms). After a 100-ms interstimulus interval (ISI), a small Gabor patch was displayed briefly (100 ms) as a probe on the left or right side of the fixation. Participants were required to rapidly and accurately press one of two arrow keys to indicate the probe location. The procedures of Experiments 2, 3, and 6 were similar to those of Experiment 1 except for different central and peripheral cues, with Experiment 6 additionally adopting a within-subjects design</p> <p>Throughout the whole task, participants were required to fixate on the central cross and explicitly informed that the direction of stimuli (central and peripheral cues) did not predict target location. There were 320 trials in total, divided into 4 blocks. Each block contained 80 trials and all conditions were counterbalanced, with 20 trials for each condition. Under each condition, the peripheral arrow cue had an equal chance of appearing above or below the central cross. Short rest breaks were provided after every 40 trials. Test trials were presented in a randomized order for each participant and conducted after 16 practice trials.</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-8">Experiment 2</hd> <p>Experiment 2 followed the same design and procedure as in Experiment 1, except that the arrow stimulus was employed as a central cue while the BM stimulus as a peripheral cue.</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-9">Experiment 3</hd> <p>Experiment 3 was similar in procedure to Experiment 1 but incorporated specific adjustments to better align BM and arrow stimuli. In particular, the size of central BM cues was appropriately reduced (2.2° × 3.9° instead of 3.2° × 5.7°). Meanwhile, the peripheral arrow cue was made dynamic, with both the angle of arrowhead and arrowtail expanding uniformly from 50° to 70° within 500 ms (ultimately consistent with the static arrows in Experiments 1 and 2).</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-10">Experiment 4</hd> <p>Contrary to Experiment 3, peripheral arrow cues were replaced by face images in Experiment 4 (see Fig. 2). Within the 500-ms BM presentation, a face with straight gaze (2.4° × 3.1°) was displayed vertically above or below the central cross at a distance of 4.3° for 200 ms, followed by a 300-ms gaze cue (the same face but with leftward or rightward gaze).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of a single trial in Experiments 4–5. Experiment 4 followed the design of Experiment 1, with the key difference that eye gaze cues served as peripheral cues. Specifically, during the 500-ms BM display, a neutral face with straight gaze appeared briefly (200 ms) above or below the central cross, followed by a 300-ms gaze shift to the left or right. Experiment 5 reversed the positions of BM and eye gaze stimuli, while other procedures remained consistent with those in Experiment 4. Enlarged face stimuli depicting the straight gaze and averted gaze conditions are shown on the right</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-11">Experiment 5</hd> <p>Experiment 5 was identical to Experiment 4 except that BM and eye gaze stimuli switched their roles, namely eye gaze stimuli were used as central cues and BM stimuli were used as peripheral cues.</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-12">Experiment 6</hd> <p>Experiment 6 followed a similar procedure to Experiments 1–5 but adopted a within-subjects design and incorporated a new dynamic arrow stimulus, which allowed for more robust comparison of social versus nonsocial attention within a dual-cue conflict paradigm. In particular, this experiment was divided into two sessions focusing on specific central cues (BM, arrow). In the BM-cue session, central BM cue (2.2° × 3.9°, identical to the size used in Experiments 3–5) appeared for 500 ms while peripheral arrow cue initially appeared at 4.3° visual angle vertically above or below the central cross for 200 ms. The arrow subsequently moved 0.06° in its indicated direction (i.e., leftward for a leftward cue, rightward for a rightward cue)—equivalent to the displacement of irises and pupils during gaze shifts in Experiments 4–5—and held this position for the remaining 300 ms. In the arrow-cue session, arrows served as central cues and BM as peripheral cues, with all other procedures unchanged. Such modification made arrows more comparable to BM and eye gaze stimuli while enhancing their directional salience and dynamic properties. Each session contained 320 trials, consistent with the design in Experiments 1–5. The order of the two sessions was counterbalanced across participants. Before the experiment, participants performed 16 practice trials, with central and peripheral cues identical to those used in the subsequent first session.</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-13">Data analysis</hd> <p>To evaluate the reflexivity of attentional orienting induced by central cues against peripheral cues, we extracted the response time (RT) in each trial for each participant. Following established practices in social attention research (Nummenmaa &amp; Hietanen, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref68">55</reflink>]; Yuan et al., [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref69">86</reflink>]), trials with incorrect responses, anticipations (RTs shorter than 100 ms), and retardations (RTs longer than 1000 ms) were filtered beforehand, followed by the removal of outlier trials with RTs beyond 2 standard deviations (<emph>SD</emph>) from each participant's mean value. Overall, 6.07% of trials were excluded from analysis (Experiment 1: 6.98%, Experiment 2: 5.89%, Experiment 3: 5.95%, Experiment 4: 4.86%, Experiment 5: 6.05%, Experiment 6: 6.38%). Mean RTs were entered into a 2 × 2 repeated measures ANOVA with two within-subject factors of cue validity (valid vs. invalid) and direction congruency (congruent vs. incongruent). A significant interaction effect would suggest that attentional orienting induced by central cues is modulated by conflicting peripheral cues. Specifically, attenuated attentional orienting in the incongruent relative to congruent condition would indicate an interference effect. Furthermore, to directly compare attentional orienting with and without conflict while minimizing individual differences in response speed (Wang &amp; Theeuwes, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref70">79</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref71">82</reflink>]; Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref72">87</reflink>]), normalized cueing effects (i.e., RT difference between the valid and invalid conditions divided by their sum, namely (RT<subs>invalid </subs>− RT<subs>valid</subs>)/(RT<subs>invalid</subs> + RT<subs>valid</subs>); see also Gomez et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref73">31</reflink>]; Ji et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref74">40</reflink>]; Wang &amp; Theeuwes, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref75">79</reflink>]; Yu et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref76">85</reflink>]) were calculated for each direction congruency condition (congruent, incongruent). Paired <emph>t</emph> tests comparing normalized cueing effects between the two conditions provided further evidence for the reflexivity of attentional orienting induced by central cues in conflict.</p> <p>Given that attention would fluctuate in the experiment, thereby averaging RTs data across all trials would obscure these dynamics and yield coarse estimates (Esterman et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref77">19</reflink>]). Here, we innovatively utilized a sliding window method to precisely portray how the resistance of attentional orienting to peripheral interference varies over time. The interference effect was defined as the difference between cueing effects in congruent and incongruent conditions ((RT<subs>invalid_congruent </subs>− RT<subs>valid_congruent</subs>) − (RT<subs>invalid_incongruent </subs>− RT<subs>valid_incongruent</subs>)). Its temporal trend was then assessed across trials. Specifically, 160 trials were set as a time bin, moving over trials with the step size of one trial. For instance, bin 1 included trials from the 1st to the 160th, bin 2 from the 2nd to the 161st and so forth, with bin 161 covering trials from the 161st to the 320th, thereby encompassing all trials. The running average of the interference effect was calculated from RTs under the four conditions of the 160 trials in each time bin, as drawn in Fig. 3A. This bin length ensured reliable estimates of interference effects by providing approximately 40 trials per condition within each time bin, comparable to prior research (Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref78">47</reflink>]). Subsequently, consecutive one-sample <emph>t</emph> tests assessed interference effects across all time bins, followed by a cluster-based permutation test to avoid potential problems arising from multiple comparisons (Groppe et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref79">34</reflink>]). Clusters were formed when neighboring time bins had <emph>t</emph>-values exceeding a threshold (<emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05). Cluster mass, derived from the sum of <emph>t</emph>-values within each cluster, was compared against a null distribution generated from 2000 random permutations. When cluster mass fell beyond 95% of this distribution (<emph>α</emph> = 0.05), interference effects in time bins of the cluster were deemed statistically significant. Finally, to more explicitly illustrate the temporal trends, all time bins were further divided into two parts, the early and late halves (80 bins per section, with bin 161 removed), and one-sample <emph>t </emph>tests were conducted on individual data for mean interference effects in each period.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Results from Experiments 1–3. In Experiment 1, central BM cues stably induced a reflexive attentional cueing effect even when conflicting with a peripheral arrow pointing in the opposite direction (A, B). Such resilience to conflict vanished in Experiment 2 when arrows served as central cues and BM served as peripheral cues (C, D). After better matching these two stimuli, Experiment 3 replicated results observed in Experiment 1 (E, F). *p &lt; 0.05; **p &lt; 0.01; ***p &lt; 0.001; n.s., not significant. In the panels below (B, D, F), red shaded areas represent standard errors; horizontal gray lines indicate time bins with significant interference effects at p &lt; 0.05, while black lines indicate significant time bins after cluster-based permutation correction</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-14">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0192430102-15">Experiment 1</hd> <p>In Experiment 1, the repeated measures ANOVA showed a main effect of cue validity (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref80">1</reflink>, 19) = 12.58, <emph>p</emph> = 0.002, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.40), indicating that even when explicitly informed that stimuli direction was not predictive of the target location, participants responded significantly faster to targets appearing on the same side of walking direction of BM cues (valid condition, <emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SE</emph> = 379.52 ± 9.84 ms) than on the opposite side (invalid condition, <emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SE</emph> = 388.64 ± 10.34 ms). Such a result confirms that central BM cues can effectively induce attentional orienting, as expected and consistent with previous studies where BM cues were presented in isolation (Shi et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref81">65</reflink>]; L. Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref82">80</reflink>]; R. Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref83">82</reflink>]). Importantly, there was no significant main effect of direction congruency (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref84">1</reflink>, 19) = 0.07, <emph>p</emph> = 0.793, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> &lt; 0.01) nor interaction between these two factors (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref85">1</reflink>, 19) = 1.16, <emph>p</emph> = 0.295, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.06; see Fig. 3A). Normalized cueing effects further corroborated these outcomes, which again revealed no significant difference between the congruent and incongruent conditions (0.014 vs. 0.009, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref86">19</reflink>) = 1.11, <emph>p</emph> = 0.279, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.25, 95% CI for the mean difference [− 0.004, 0.014]). Collectively, these results jointly demonstrated that the direction of peripheral arrows could not affect the reflexive attentional orienting induced by central BM cues.</p> <p>Notably, the temporal analysis using a sliding window method revealed that, no time bins exhibited significant interference effects after the cluster-based permutation test (see Fig. 3B). Moreover, the mean interference effect was neither significantly different from 0 for the early period (<emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SE</emph> = 3.99 ± 3.30 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref87">19</reflink>) = 1.21, <emph>p</emph> = 0.241, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.27, 95% CI for the mean difference [− 2.90, 10.89]), nor for the late period (<emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SE</emph> = 5.15 ± 3.93 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref88">19</reflink>) = 1.31, <emph>p</emph> = 0.206, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.29, 95% CI for the mean difference [− 3.08, 13.37]). Therefore, it is further confirmed that the reflexive attentional orienting induced by walking direction of BM was stably resistant to interference from peripheral arrows throughout the whole task, which may result from higher automation and reflexivity of cueing effects evoked by social cues than nonsocial cues (Friesen &amp; Kingstone, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref89">22</reflink>]; Friesen et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref90">24</reflink>]; Langton &amp; Bruce, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref91">45</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-16">Experiment 2</hd> <p>In Experiment 2, we further investigated whether peripherally presented BM stimuli could affect the attentional orienting induced by central arrow cues. Results revealed a significant main effect of cue validity (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref92">1</reflink>, 19) = 7.57, <emph>p</emph> = 0.013, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.29), but no main effect of direction congruency (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref93">1</reflink>, 19) = 1.15, <emph>p</emph> = 0.296, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.06). Crucially, the interaction between cue validity and direction congruency was marginally significant (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref94">1</reflink>, 19) = 4.37, <emph>p</emph> = 0.050, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.19), suggesting potential interference of peripheral BM on arrow-induced attention. Post hoc <emph>t</emph> tests found a significant attentional orienting effect triggered by central arrow cues in the congruent condition (365.40 ms vs. 373.00 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref95">19</reflink>) = 3.14, <emph>p</emph> = 0.005, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.70, 95% CI for the mean difference [2.53, 12.66]). However, this orienting effect disappeared in the incongruent condition (369.12 ms vs. 372.51 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref96">19</reflink>) = 1.67, <emph>p</emph> = 0.112, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.37, 95% CI for the mean difference [− 0.87, 7.65]; see Fig. 3C). In correspondence with the result, the normalized cueing effect decreased in the incongruent condition compared to the congruent condition (0.010 ± 0.003 vs. 0.004 ± 0.003; <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref97">19</reflink>) = 2.03, <emph>p</emph> = 0.057, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.45, 95% CI for the mean difference [− 0.0002, 0.012]). Overall, these findings together revealed that peripheral BM cues had a tendency to interfere with the cueing effect induced by central arrow cues.</p> <p>Additionally, significant interference effects were discovered in bin 82–142 (see Fig. 3D). One-sample <emph>t</emph> tests similarly found that the mean interference effect in the late period (bin 81–160) was significant (early period: <emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SE</emph> = 4.69 ± 2.84 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref98">19</reflink>) = 1.65, <emph>p</emph> = 0.116, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.37, 95% CI for the mean difference [− 1.27, 10.64]; late period: <emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SE</emph> = 7.54 ± 2.89 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref99">19</reflink>) = 2.61, <emph>p</emph> = 0.017, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.58, 95% CI for the mean difference [1.50, 13.59]). In summary, walking direction of peripheral BM stimuli played a role in attenuating the orienting of attention exerted by central arrow cues. This interference effect of BM cues may be rooted in the fact that social attention is more reflexive and temporally stable, whereas nonsocial attention gradually decreases and requires more top-down cognitive control to maintain (Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref100">47</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-17">Experiment 3</hd> <p>Experiment 3 introduced peripheral arrow cues with a continuous increase in angles at the arrowhead and arrowtail to better match the dynamic BM cues, thereby eliminating the possibility that disparities in dynamic properties of stimuli might account for the observed asymmetric interference effect. Additionally, the size of BM cues was reduced to minimize potential confounds. Consistent with the findings of Experiment 1, the identical 2 × 2 repeated measures ANOVA only found a significant main effect of cue validity (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref101">1</reflink>, 19) = 18.83, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.50), neither the main effect of direction congruency (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref102">1</reflink>, 19) = 0.16, <emph>p</emph> = 0.695, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.01) nor their interaction (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref103">1</reflink>, 19) = 2.41, <emph>p</emph> = 0.137, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.11) reached significance (see Fig. 3E). Regardless of direction congruency between the peripheral and central cues, a significant BM-induced attentional orienting was revealed (valid, <emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SE</emph> = 350.42 ± 8.03 ms; invalid, <emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SE</emph> = 358.44 ± 7.83 ms). Normalized cueing effects provided additional evidence that there was no significant difference between the congruent and incongruent conditions (0.014 vs. 0.009, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref104">19</reflink>) = 1.46, <emph>p</emph> = 0.161, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.33, 95% CI for the mean difference [− 0.002, 0.012]). This indifference was also confirmed across all time bins (see Fig. 3F), as well as in the early and late periods (bin 1–80: <emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SE</emph> = 3.03 ± 2.78 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref105">19</reflink>) = 1.09, <emph>p</emph> = 0.289, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.24, 95% CI for the mean difference [− 2.79, 8.86]); bin 81–160: <emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SE</emph> = 5.36 ± 3.43 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref106">19</reflink>) = 1.56, <emph>p</emph> = 0.135, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.35, 95% CI for the mean difference [− 1.82, 12.54]) of the temporal analyses. In conclusion, Experiment 3 essentially replicated the results of Experiment 1, thus clearly demonstrating the robust resistance of BM-induced attention to interference from conflicting peripheral arrows.</p> <p>Combined with Experiments 1, 2, and 3, an asymmetric interference effect was found when the direction of social cues (i.e., BM) conflicted with nonsocial cues (i.e., arrow). BM stimuli as peripheral cues could strongly affect the attentional processing of central arrow cues, but as central cues are immune to peripheral oppositely oriented arrows. This asymmetric interference effect, potentially reflecting susceptibility of central arrows to conflict, robust potency of peripheral BM in guiding attention, or their combination, suggests that BM cues hold attentional priority over arrow cues and might be coded by a specialized neural network (Troje &amp; Westhoff, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref107">73</reflink>]). These results further supported the hypothesis that processing mechanisms of social attention might be dissociated from those of nonsocial attention.</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-18">Experiment 4</hd> <p>Our daily life is crowded with diverse directional cues, and apart from conflicts between BM and nonsocial cues, BM also competes with social cues for limited attentional resources. Therefore, Experiment 4 additionally explored the interference effect of other social cues (i.e., eye gaze) on the attentional orienting evoked by BM cues. No significant main effects were found for cue validity (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref108">1</reflink>, 19) = 0.98, <emph>p</emph> = 0.335, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.05) and direction congruency (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref109">1</reflink>, 19) = 2.29, <emph>p</emph> = 0.146, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.11), while their interaction was significant (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref110">1</reflink>, 19) = 8.66, <emph>p</emph> = 0.008, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.31). Reflexive attentional orienting stably existed when the orientation of central BM and peripheral gaze were aligned (343.43 ms vs. 347.69 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref111">19</reflink>) = 3.08, <emph>p</emph> = 0.006, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.69, 95% CI for the mean difference [1.36, 7.18]), but disappeared when they were unaligned (344.92 ms vs. 343.49 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref112">19</reflink>) = − 0.71, <emph>p</emph> = 0.486, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = − 0.16, 95% CI for the mean difference [− 5.65, 2.79]; see Fig. 4A). In addition, the normalized cueing effect was also significantly smaller in the incongruent condition than that in the congruent condition (− 0.002 vs. 0.006, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref113">19</reflink>) = − 3.12, <emph>p</emph> = 0.006, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.70, 95% CI for the mean difference [− 0.014, − 0.003]). Consequently, these results collectively suggested that the reflexive attentional orienting triggered by BM cues was attenuated when the direction of peripheral gaze cues conflicted with BM cues.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Results from Experiments 4–5. Whether adopting central BM versus peripheral eye gaze (Experiment 4, A, B) or central eye gaze versus peripheral BM (Experiment 5, C, D), the interference from peripheral social cues on attentional orienting evoked by central social cues was evident. **p &lt; 0.01; n.s., not significant. In the panels below (B, D), red shaded areas represent standard errors; horizontal gray lines indicate time bins with significant interference effects at p &lt; 0.05, while black lines indicate significant time bins after cluster-based permutation correction</p> <p>Contrary to Experiment 2, the temporal trend of the interference effect indicated that time bins with significant cueing effects differences were bin 1–67 (see Fig. 4B). Moreover, the interference effect was significant in the first half of time bins (bin 1–80: <emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SE</emph> = 6.36 ± 2.17 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref114">19</reflink>) = 2.93, <emph>p</emph> = 0.009, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.66, 95% CI for the mean difference [1.81, 10.90]), marginally significant in the second half (bin 81–160: <emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SE</emph> = 5.06 ± 2.60 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref115">19</reflink>) = 1.95, <emph>p</emph> = 0.067, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.44, 95% CI for the mean difference [− 0.38, 10.50]). Thus, conflicting peripheral gaze cues could impact the BM-induced reflexive attentional orienting, thereby providing evidence that gaze cues, as another type of social cue, similarly engage a reflexive attentional process.</p> <p>Collectively, when social cue BM was used as a central cue to steadily orient participants' attention, the nonsocial cue in Experiments 1 and 3 (i.e., arrow) continuously failed to interfere throughout the task, whereas the other social cue in Experiment 4 (i.e., eye gaze) was able to generate significant interference. This asymmetric interference effect in Experiments 1, 3, and 4 again implied that there might exist a specialized brain mechanism for social but not nonsocial attentional orienting.</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-19">Experiment 5</hd> <p>To investigate whether the interference effect between social stimuli obtained in Experiment 4 could also be found when their roles were switched, Experiment 5 was conducted. The 2 × 2 ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of cue validity (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref116">1</reflink>, 19) = 9.39, <emph>p</emph> = 0.006, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.33), while no significant main effect of direction congruency (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref117">1</reflink>, 19) = 0.11, <emph>p</emph> = 0.748, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.01). It is noteworthy that, similar to Experiment 4, the two-way interaction again reached significance (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref118">1</reflink>, 19) = 7.38, <emph>p</emph> = 0.014, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.28). Consistent with findings of previous single-cue presentation studies (Friesen &amp; Kingstone, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref119">22</reflink>]), central eye gaze cues induced a significant attentional cueing effect in the congruent condition (352.12 ms vs. 358.79 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref120">19</reflink>) = 3.53, <emph>p</emph> = 0.002, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.79, 95% CI for the mean difference [2.72, 10.62]). In the incongruent condition, however, no significant cueing effect was found (354.33 ms vs. 357.24 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref121">19</reflink>) = 1.93, <emph>p</emph> = 0.069, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.43, 95% CI for the mean difference [− 0.25, 6.08]; see Fig. 4C). Meanwhile, the difference between normalized cueing effects in the congruent and incongruent conditions was also significant (0.009 vs. 0.004, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref122">19</reflink>) = 2.80, <emph>p</emph> = 0.011, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.63, 95% CI for the mean difference [0.001, 0.009]). In sum, peripheral BM cues could affect the reflexive cueing effect evoked by central eye gaze cues.</p> <p>Furthermore, the temporal results from Experiment 5 closely mirrored those observed in Experiment 4, with the interference effect significant in bin 4–64 (see Fig. 4D) and in the early period (bin 1–80: <emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SE</emph> = 4.68 ± 1.50 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref123">19</reflink>) = 3.13, <emph>p</emph> = 0.006, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.70, 95% CI for the mean difference [1.55, 7.81]; bin 81–160: <emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SE</emph> = 3.76 ± 2.64 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref124">19</reflink>) = 1.42, <emph>p</emph> = 0.171, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.32, 95% CI for the mean difference [− 1.77, 9.29]). In conclusion, the reflexive attentional orienting of central eye gaze cues could be affected by conflicts from peripheral BM cues.</p> <p>Taken together, these converging findings of Experiments 4 and 5 confirmed a cross-category symmetric interference effect between eye gaze and BM, further suggesting that social attention induced by different types of social cues might involve shared neural mechanisms. Notably, this contrasts with the asymmetric interference between BM and arrows in Experiments 1–3, indicating two relatively distinct processes for social and nonsocial attention.</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-20">Experiment 6</hd> <p>To validate the asymmetric interference effects between BM and arrow cues, Experiment 6 employed a within-subjects design with dynamically enhanced arrow stimuli that incorporated implied motion to better match BM properties. This approach minimized between-subject variability (Montoya, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref125">53</reflink>]) and assessed whether the asymmetry reflects differences between social and nonsocial attention mechanisms. When central BM cues were presented with peripheral arrow cues, results were in line with those of Experiments 1 and 3. The identical 2 × 2 ANOVA only revealed a significant main effect of cue validity (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref126">1</reflink>, 19) = 7.48, <emph>p</emph> = 0.013, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.28), with no significant main effect of direction congruency (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref127">1</reflink>, 19) = 3.12, <emph>p</emph> = 0.094, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.14) or their interaction (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref128">1</reflink>, 19) = 0.55, <emph>p</emph> = 0.467, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.03). BM cues elicited robust attentional cueing effects irrespective of directional congruency with peripheral arrow cues (valid, <emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SE</emph> = 341.53 ± 4.67 ms; invalid, <emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SE</emph> = 347.74 ± 5.48 ms; see Fig. 5A). The reflexivity of BM-induced attentional orienting was further corroborated by equivalent normalized cueing effects between congruent and incongruent conditions (0.010 vs. 0.007, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref129">19</reflink>) = 0.67, <emph>p</emph> = 0.513, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.15, 95% CI for the mean difference [− 0.006, 0.011]; see Fig. 5B). Consistently, no significant interference effect was observed across all time bins (see Fig. 5C), including both early and late task period (bin 1–80: <emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SE</emph> = 3.60 ± 4.01 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref130">19</reflink>) = 0.90, <emph>p</emph> = 0.381, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.20, 95% CI for the mean difference [− 4.80, 11.99]; bin 81–160: <emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SE</emph> = 3.56 ± 4.60 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref131">19</reflink>) = 0.78, <emph>p</emph> = 0.448, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.17, 95% CI for the mean difference [− 6.06, 13.19]). To sum up, Experiment 6 replicated the findings of Experiments 1 and 3, reaffirming the automaticity and reflexivity of BM in guiding attention against interference from peripheral arrows throughout the task.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 5 Results from Experiment 6. With improved stimulus matching and a within-subjects design, results of Experiment 6 replicated the asymmetric interference effects observed in Experiments 1–3. Attentional orienting elicited by BM cues robustly resisted interference from peripheral arrows (A, B, C) while reliably interfering with arrow-induced attention (D, E, F). ***p &lt; 0.001; *p &lt; 0.05. In the panels below (C, F), red shaded areas represent standard errors; horizontal gray lines indicate time bins with significant interference effects at p &lt; 0.05, while black lines indicate significant time bins after cluster-based permutation correction</p> <p>On the contrary, when arrow cues were presented centrally and BM cues peripherally, ANOVA revealed a significant cue validity × direction congruency interaction (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref132">1</reflink>, 19) = 4.96, <emph>p</emph> = 0.038, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.21), with a main effect of cue validity (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref133">1</reflink>, 19) = 21.40, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.53) but not direction congruency (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref134">1</reflink>, 19) = 0.09, <emph>p</emph> = 0.766, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups>2</sups> &lt; 0.01), implying a modulation of directional congruency on the magnitude of arrow-induced attention. Post hoc <emph>t</emph> tests found that arrow cues induced significant cueing effects in both congruent (347.13 ms vs. 360.33 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref135">19</reflink>) = 5.13, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 1.15, 95% CI for the mean difference [7.81, 18.57]) and incongruent (351.00 ms vs. 357.34 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref136">19</reflink>) = 2.39, <emph>p</emph> = 0.028, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.53, 95% CI for the mean difference [0.78, 11.89]; see Fig. 5D) conditions. Critically, this modulation from peripheral BM cues was further confirmed by normalized cueing effects, which differed significantly between congruent and incongruent conditions (0.018 vs. 0.009, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref137">19</reflink>) = 2.14, <emph>p</emph> = 0.046, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.48, 95% CI for the mean difference [0.0002, 0.018]; see Fig. 5E). Although single time bins did not reveal significant interference effects after correction, a significant interference effect emerged when averaged across the early period (bin 1–80: <emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SE</emph> = 8.11 ± 3.82 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref138">19</reflink>) = 2.12, <emph>p</emph> = 0.047, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.47, 95% CI for the mean difference [0.12, 16.11]; bin 81–160: <emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SE</emph> = 4.80 ± 3.10 ms, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref139">19</reflink>) = 1.55, <emph>p</emph> = 0.138, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.35, 95% CI for the mean difference [− 1.68, 11.28]; see Fig. 5F). In summary, these findings collectively verify that peripheral BM cues could interfere with arrow-induced attention.</p> <p>Across all experiments, BM and arrow stimuli exhibited an asymmetric interference effect favoring BM signals (Experiments 1–3 and 6), while BM and eye gaze stimuli possessed a symmetric mutual interference effect (Experiments 4–5). This striking dissociation, which may stem from the vulnerability of central arrows to conflict, the superior attentional potency of peripheral social cues, or both factors, supports specialized neural networks for social attention that are distinct from, yet more reflexive than, nonsocial attention.</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-21">Discussion</hd> <p>Previous studies in the field of BM-induced attention have traditionally been limited to isolated cues, whereas in the real world, BM cues are always embedded in complex environments and need to compete for attention. The current study extends the existing literature by innovatively exploring how attentional systems resolve potential conflicts arising from simultaneously perceived BM and other types of cues. Our results showed that cueing effects induced by central BM cues exhibited stable resistance to interference from peripheral arrow cues for a relatively long time, while cueing effects induced by central arrow cues disappeared under peripheral BM disturbances. This asymmetric interference effect strongly highlights the automatic extraction and reflexive advantage of walking direction of BM over arrow cues, triggering attentional orienting even amidst stimuli indicating opposite locations. Conversely, a cross-category and symmetric interference effect was observed between BM and eye gaze cues, suggesting that social cues induce attentional shifts with comparable reflexivity. From a real-world multi-stimulus conflicting perspective, these findings provide new compelling evidence for a unique processing mechanism underlying social attention induced by different social cues, which may not apply to nonsocial attention. This mechanistic insight underscores the crucial role of social signals as potent attentional cues in domains where rapid, accurate attentional guidance amid conflict is critical.</p> <p>The attentional orienting triggered by walking direction of BM has been proven to be reflexive in single-cue presentations, independent of observers' awareness of its biological nature (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref140">81</reflink>]) and resistant to temporal decay as task proceeds (Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref141">47</reflink>]). In our study, even with an increased trial number (from 16–30 to 80 trials per condition) and nonpredictive stimuli (i.e., central and peripheral cues) consistent with established interference paradigms (Besner et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref142">4</reflink>]; Nummenmaa &amp; Hietanen, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref143">55</reflink>]), cueing effects of BM remained stably immune to peripheral opposite arrows while strongly disturbing central arrow processing. Critically, increased trial number enabled a sliding window analysis (Esterman et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref144">19</reflink>]; Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref145">47</reflink>]), which allowed for a more fine-grained temporal analysis compared to previous coarse divisions (e.g., early versus late halves (van Laarhoven et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref146">77</reflink>]); experimental blocks (Lin et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref147">46</reflink>]; Shalev et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref148">64</reflink>])). This approach provided definitive evidence that BM-induced attention was robust enough to withstand arrow interference throughout the entire task. This result well fulfills the criterion for automatic processes, which stipulates that an automatic process can interfere with other processes but is unaffected by them (Besner et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref149">5</reflink>]). Therefore, our study unambiguously verifies the reflexive nature of BM-induced attention, which is potentially rooted in its evolutionary advantage over symbolic cues (Lu et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref150">49</reflink>]). Among social organisms, rapid perception and interpretation of other creatures' focuses is essential for survival, offering clues for food acquisition (Galef &amp; Giraldeau, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref151">26</reflink>]), predator avoidance (Griffin, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref152">33</reflink>]), and cooperation seeking (Chevallier et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref153">13</reflink>]). Given these life-or-death outcomes, spontaneous attentional shifts to BM signals emerge early in human development (Bardi et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref154">3</reflink>]; Lunghi et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref155">51</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref156">50</reflink>]) and are also observed in nonhuman species. For instance, newly hatched chicks, despite lacking visual experience, aligned their bodies with walking direction conveyed by point-like animations (Vallortigara &amp; Regolin, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref157">75</reflink>]). As a result, when presented with biologically meaningless arrow cues, even nonpredictive BM may be prioritized in competition for attentional resources and unilaterally interfere with response to arrows. By displaying different cues simultaneously, our study proposes a more stringent criterion for reflexive attentional orienting, namely being shielded from interference from conflicting peripheral cues, which better matches real-world complexity where attention must operate amid competing cues.</p> <p>Furthermore, the asymmetric interference effect between BM and arrow cues suggests that, from a conflict-resistance perspective, arrow-induced attention is less reflexive and more susceptible to top-down cognitive control (Friesen et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref158">24</reflink>]; Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref159">47</reflink>]; Ristic et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref160">60</reflink>]; Schmitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref161">63</reflink>]). Although nonsocial cues such as arrows can elicit attentional shifts even when they are target-uninformative (Hommel et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref162">38</reflink>]; Tipples, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref163">70</reflink>]), findings predominantly rely on single-cue presentations. However, given that real life involves multiple cues and the inevitable resultant conflicts, a stricter criterion is needed to reassess the reflexivity of nonsocial attention. Importantly, our study provides a more direct comparison of attentional orienting induced by BM and arrow cues, revealing a unique mechanism underlying BM processing that is impervious to interference from nonsocial cues. The distinction between BM- and arrow-mediated attention may arise because arrows are overlearned symbols with flexible directional interpretations (Ristic &amp; Kingstone, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref164">59</reflink>]; Schmitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref165">63</reflink>]). Not surprisingly, attentional shifts to such nonsocial cues lack an evolutionary basis and are primarily shaped by environmental factors (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref166">80</reflink>]). Therefore, arrow cues failed to interfere with BM cues and were strongly affected by them when guiding spatial orientation in conflict.</p> <p>It is noteworthy that, in contrast to asymmetric interference effects between social and nonsocial cues, interference effects between different social cues are symmetric. Specifically, when directions of BM and eye gaze conflicted, peripheral gaze cues reduced BM-induced attention. Similar results were observed when the two cues switched positions. These findings indicate that orienting shifts by social cues show an equivalent level of reflexivity, an idea that is also validated by studies separately comparing single cues (Driver et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref167">17</reflink>]; Friesen &amp; Kingstone, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref168">22</reflink>]; Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref169">47</reflink>]; Shi et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref170">65</reflink>]). Similar to BM, even presented as irrelevant peripheral cues, nonpredictive gaze cues are hard to inhibit and indeed trigger attentional shifts. In addition, this cross-category and symmetric interference effect further indicates that directional information from simultaneously perceived social cues is voluntarily integrated for attentional orienting (Langton, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref171">44</reflink>]), implying the existence of a general underlying mechanism shared by different types of social attention behaviors. This assertion is supported by the cross-category adaptation aftereffects (Ji et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref172">40</reflink>]) and reliable common genetic effects (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref173">80</reflink>]) between social attention evoked by BM and eye gaze. Crucially, neuroimaging evidence has demonstrated that the superior temporal sulcus (STS) region could decode attentional orienting across BM and gaze cues (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref174">82</reflink>]). Based on these findings, our study is the first to directly compare BM and gaze cues in a single trial. The symmetric and rapid interference effect suggests, within the dimension of conflict, a shared mechanism for reflexive social attention induced by different social cues, providing strong evidence for the "social attention detector" (Ji et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref175">40</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref176">80</reflink>]).</p> <p>Altogether, our dual-cue conflict paradigm revealed that attentional orienting to social cues is more reflexive than that to nonsocial cues in conflict situations, providing compelling evidence for the distinctiveness of social attention. Previous studies comparing social and nonsocial attention predominantly rely on isolated displays of gaze and arrow cues, reporting comparable cueing effects (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref177">82</reflink>]) but considerable discrepancies regarding their functional properties and neural substrates. In addition to behavioral findings that social attention is more reflexive (Friesen et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref178">24</reflink>]; Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref179">47</reflink>]; Ristic et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref180">60</reflink>]), some neuroimaging studies indicate that gaze and arrows recruit distinct attention systems: the dorsal attentional network for arrow cueing and the ventral attention network for gaze cueing (Callejas et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref181">10</reflink>]; Joseph et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref182">42</reflink>]). In contrast, other studies have reported no discernible difference between these two types of attentional orienting, either in terms of behavioral effects (Chacón-Candia et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref183">12</reflink>]; Singh et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref184">66</reflink>]; Tipples, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref185">71</reflink>]) or neural activation (Callejas et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref186">10</reflink>]; Greene et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref187">32</reflink>]; Sato et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref188">62</reflink>]; Tipper et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref189">69</reflink>]; Uono et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref190">74</reflink>]). Such discrepancies may stem from limited sensitivity of classical cueing paradigms to capture distinctive characteristics that differentiate gaze from arrow cues (Birmingham &amp; Kingstone, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref191">6</reflink>]), as cues are primarily compared along their shared dimension of directional information (Gibson &amp; Kingstone, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref192">28</reflink>]). Here, employing BM cues and competing displays helps to resolve the long-standing discrepancies in previous single-cue studies. Our noteworthy findings disclosed the reflexive superiority of social cues over nonsocial cues in guiding attention, aligning with a wealth of studies that underscore the role of social but not nonsocial cues in higher cognitive processes (e.g., mentalizing, working memory, and time perception; Ge et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref193">27</reflink>]; Huang et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref194">39</reflink>]; Marotta et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref195">52</reflink>]; Yu et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref196">85</reflink>]; Yuan et al., [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref197">86</reflink>]; Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref198">87</reflink>]). Furthermore, this reflexive dominance suggests that an underlying neural architecture is specialized for involuntary social attention, a notion substantiated by a recent fMRI study identifying the right STS and superior temporal gyrus (STG) as regions capable of decoding attentional orienting across social (eye gaze and BM) but not nonsocial (arrow) cues (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref199">82</reflink>]). Collectively, by introducing conflict as a critical dimension for evaluating attentional reflexivity, the current study offers novel insights into the distinctive nature of social attention.</p> <p>The identified reflexive priority of social signals in conflict carries immediate translational value across diverse applied domains. First, this priority can be leveraged to optimize navigation and public signaling systems. For instance, dynamic human-figure indicators may outperform conventional arrow-based signage in transportation hubs, commercial centers, or healthcare facilities, since social signals could function as robust attentional anchors amidst visual clutter or high cognitive demand. Such advantage becomes particularly critical where attention-driven decision-making is paramount to safety (e.g., high-speed driving, incident response, or emergency evacuations; Hinton et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref200">36</reflink>]; Sundfør et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref201">67</reflink>]; van Harten et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref202">76</reflink>]). Beyond physical environments, these principles extend to digital interface design across 2D platforms (e.g., websites, mobile applications, and information dashboards) and 3D spaces (e.g., virtual or augmented reality deployed in navigation, industrial operations, or surgical guidance), where embedding subtle social cues can effectively guide user's focus toward critical information (Appel et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref203">2</reflink>]; Bönsch et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref204">8</reflink>]). Particularly in emergency alert systems and safety–critical notifications, embedding social signals (a sudden BM cue within an arrow‑based navigation display) may redirect attention to imminent hazards, ensuring vital warnings cut through information-rich interfaces.</p> <p>It should be noted that the current samples included only healthy adults; however, not all individuals exhibit equal adeptness in following others' walking direction. Impaired social orienting has been well-documented in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD; American Psychiatric Association, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref205">1</reflink>]), serving as a core clinical indicator for early diagnosis (Dawson et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref206">14</reflink>]). Despite this, some laboratory experimental studies have reported relatively intact attentional shifts induced by social cues (e.g., eye gaze) in ASD (Kirchgessner et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref207">43</reflink>]; Pruett et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref208">57</reflink>]; Rombough &amp; Iarocci, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref209">61</reflink>]); but see (Gillespie-Lynch et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref210">29</reflink>]; Goldberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref211">30</reflink>]; Yang et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref212">83</reflink>]; Zhao et al., [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref213">89</reflink>]). These studies primarily tested social attention through simple single-cue displays, and individuals with ASD beyond school age may vicariously utilize low-level directional features or nonsocial mechanisms to fulfill tasks (Nation &amp; Penny, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref214">54</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref215">80</reflink>]; Yang et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref216">83</reflink>]). Given the complexity of the real world, it is probable that individuals with ASD consistently show diminished social attention when processing conflicting directional cues (Dichter &amp; Belger, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref217">15</reflink>]; Rombough &amp; Iarocci, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref218">61</reflink>]; Zhao et al., [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref219">89</reflink>]). Therefore, our conflict paradigm may offer a more reliable behavioral marker for ASD, providing a sensitive and ecologically valid tool that could enhance early screening and inform interventions aimed at improving social attention ability in naturalistic settings.</p> <p>Future research could extend our findings in several promising directions. Our screen-based paradigm prioritized perceptual discriminability and ensured comparable attentional effects across cue types (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref220">82</reflink>]), yet this necessarily constrained stimulus matching (e.g., size, dynamics, information richness) and ecological realism. Emerging virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technologies offer transformative opportunities to transcend these constraints (Castellana et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref221">11</reflink>]; Haskins et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref222">35</reflink>]), enabling naturalistic presentation of diverse social and nonsocial signals while maintaining experimental control. It is also worth noting that, although point-light BM displays eliminate discernible facial features and explicit gaze cues, observers may automatically extract facing direction or infer gaze direction and accordingly orient their attention. Future studies could address this interpretive limitation by employing local BM without body configuration (Lu et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref223">49</reflink>]) or backward-walking BM stimuli (Ding et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref224">16</reflink>]), thereby isolating the contribution of pure kinematic signals from implied directional information. VR and AR platforms further permit orthogonal manipulation of agents' gaze and walking direction (e.g., gaze aligned with, away from, or opposite to walking direction) to disentangle their independent and interactive effects on attentional orienting. Additionally, eye-tracking methodologies could validate the covert nature of social attention observed here or, shed light on how attention is dynamically allocated amid conflict in paradigms permitting eye movement. As such, integrating these technologies with the conflict paradigm holds the potential to illuminate how reflexive social attention identified in the laboratory unfolds in our daily life.</p> <p>In conclusion, the current study reveals that walking direction of BM can reflexively trigger attentional orienting even in the presence of conflicting peripheral arrow cues and can further interfere with the arrow processing. Furthermore, social cues (i.e., BM, eye gaze) exhibit a cross-category and symmetric interference effect. These findings, in the context of conflict mirroring real-life situations, provide novel evidence that social attention induced by various social cues shares a specialized mechanism potentially distinct from nonsocial attention, with broad application ranging from optimizing safety–critical signaling and human–machine interfaces to advancing early diagnosis and intervention for ASD.</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-22">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>Not applicable.</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-23">Author contributions</hd> <p>XH and LW conceptualized and designed the study. XH collected the data, performed the statistics, and wrote the original draft. XH and SZ visualized data. LW and YJ acquired funding, administered the project, and supervised the work. All authors developed the methodology, reviewed, and edited the manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-24">Funding</hd> <p>This study was supported by grants from STI2030-Major Projects (2022ZD0205100, 2021ZD0203800), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32430043, 32371106), the Key Research and Development Program of Guangdong (2023B0303010004), and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-25">Data availability</hd> <p>We meticulously detail our methodology, including the sample size, data exclusion, manipulations, and measures. Statistical analyses were conducted using JASP Version 0.19.1 and G*Power Version 3.1. While this study was not pre-registered, full transparency is maintained through open data and analysis code accessible at Science Data Bank (https://doi.org/10.57760/sciencedb.18066). Materials used in our research are widely available.</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-26">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0192430102-27">Ethics approval and consent to participate</hd> <p>Procedures and protocols of this study were approved by the institutional review board of the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (H23031). All participants signed informed written consent before the experiment.</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-28">Consent for publication</hd> <p>Not applicable.</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-29">Competing interests</hd> <p>The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest regarding this study, authorship, or publication of this article.</p> <hd id="AN0192430102-30">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0192430102-31"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref80" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision. 2022; American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref203" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Appel J, Von Der Pütten A, Krämer NC, Gratch J. Does humanity matter? Analyzing the importance of social cues and perceived agency of a computer system for the emergence of social reactions during human-computer interaction. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction. 2012; 2012: 1-10. 10.1155/2012/324694</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref14" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bardi L, Di Giorgio E, Lunghi M, Troje NF, Simion F. Walking direction triggers visuo-spatial orienting in 6-month-old infants and adults: An eye tracking study. Cognition. 2015; 141: 112-120. 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.014. 25978184</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref33" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Besner D, McLean D, Young T. Do eyes and arrows elicit automatic orienting? Three mutually exclusive hypotheses and a test. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2021; 74; 7: 1164-1169. 10.1177/1747021821998572</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref32" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Besner D, McLean D, Young T. On the determination of eye gaze and arrow direction: Automaticity reconsidered. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale. 2021; 75; 3: 261-278. 10.1037/cep0000261. 34096744</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref23" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Birmingham, E, &amp; Kingstone, A. (2009). Human social attention. Progress in Brain Research, 176, 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0079-6123(09)17618-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref1" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Blake R, Shiffrar M. Perception of human motion. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007; 58; 1: 47-73. 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190152. 16903802</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref204" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bönsch A, Ehret J, Rupp D, Kuhlen TW. Wayfinding in immersive virtual environments as social activity supported by virtual agents. Frontiers in Virtual Reality. 2024; 4: 1334795. 10.3389/frvir.2023.1334795</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref59" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brainard DH. The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision. 1997; 10; 4: 433-436. 10.1163/156856897x00357. 9176952</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Callejas A, Shulman GL, Corbetta M. Dorsal and ventral attention systems underlie social and symbolic cueing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2014; 26; 1: 63-80. 10.1162/jocn_a_00461. 23937692</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castellana MS, Hu P, Gutierrez D, Kaufman AE. What draws your attention first? An attention prediction model based on spatial features in virtual reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. 2025; 31; 10: 8552-8563. 10.1109/tvcg.2025.3572408. 40402705</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chacón-Candia JA, Román-Caballero R, Aranda-Martín B, Casagrande M, Lupiáñez J, Marotta A. Are there quantitative differences between eye-gaze and arrow cues? A meta-analytic answer to the debate and a call for qualitative differences. Neuroscience &amp; Biobehavioral Reviews. 2023; 144. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104993104993</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chevallier C, Kohls G, Troiani V, Brodkin ES, Schultz RT. The social motivation theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2012; 16; 4: 231-239. 10.1016/j.tics.2012.02.007. 22425667. 3329932</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dawson G, Bernier R, Ring RH. Social attention: A possible early indicator of efficacy in autism clinical trials. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders. 2012; 4; 1: 1-12. 10.1186/1866-1955-4-11</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dichter GS, Belger A. Social stimuli interfere with cognitive control in autism. NeuroImage. 2007; 35; 3: 1219-1230. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.12.038. 17321151. 1885863</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ding X, Yin J, Shui R, Zhou J, Shen M. Backward-walking biological motion orients attention to moving away instead of moving toward. Psychonomic Bulletin &amp; Review. 2017; 24; 2: 447-452. 10.3758/s13423-016-1083-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Driver J, Davis G, Ricciardelli P, Kidd P, Maxwell E, Baron-Cohen S. Gaze perception triggers reflexive visuospatial orienting. Visual Cognition. 1999; 6; 5: 509-540. 10.1080/135062899394920</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ekman P, Friesen WV. Pictures of Facial Affect. 1976; Consulting Psychologists Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Esterman M, Noonan SK, Rosenberg M, Degutis J. In the zone or zoning out? Tracking behavioral and neural fluctuations during sustained attention. Cerebral Cortex. 2013; 23; 11: 2712-2723. 10.1093/cercor/bhs261. 22941724</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fan L, Yu H, Zhang X, Feng Q, Sun M, Xu M. Conflict tasks of different types divergently affect the attentional processing of gaze and arrow. i-Perception. 2018; 9; 3. 10.1177/2041669518771713. 29770186. 59466212041669518771713</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods. 2007; 39; 2: 175-191. 10.3758/bf03193146. 17695343</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friesen CK, Kingstone A. The eyes have it! reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin &amp; Review. 1998; 5; 3: 490-495. 10.3758/bf03208827</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friesen CK, Kingstone A. Abrupt onsets and gaze direction cues trigger independent reflexive attentional effects. Cognition. 2003; 87; 1: B1-B10. 10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00181-6. 12499107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friesen CK, Ristic J, Kingstone A. Attentional effects of counterpredictive gaze and arrow cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2004; 30; 2: 319-329. 10.1037/0096-1523.30.2.319. 15053691</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. 17592962. 1950440</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galef BG, Giraldeau LA. Social influences on foraging in vertebrates: Causal mechanisms and adaptive functions. Animal Behaviour. 2001; 61: 3-15. 10.1006/anbe.2000.1557. 11170692</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ge YP, Yu YW, Huang SQ, Huang XY, Wang L, Jiang Y. Life motion signals bias the perception of apparent motion direction. British Journal of Psychology. 2024; 115; 1: 115-128. 10.1111/bjop.12680. 37623746</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibson BS, Kingstone A. Visual attention and the semantics of space: Beyond central and peripheral cues. Psychological Science. 2006; 17; 7: 622-627. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01754.x. 16866749</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillespie-Lynch K, Elias R, Escudero P, Hutman T, Johnson SP. Atypical gaze following in Autism: A comparison of three potential mechanisms. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2013; 43; 12: 2779-2792. 10.1007/s10803-013-1818-7. 23619947. 4066873</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldberg MC, Mostow AJ, Vecera SP, Larson JCG, Mostofsky SH, Mahone EM, Denckla MB. Evidence for impairments in using static line drawings of eye gaze cues to orient visual-spatial attention in children with high functioning Autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2008; 38; 8: 1405-1413. 10.1007/s10803-007-0506-x. 18074212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gomez MA, Skiba RM, Snow JC. Graspable objects grab attention more than images do. Psychological Science. 2018; 29; 2: 206-218. 10.1177/0956797617730599. 29215960</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greene DJ, Mooshagian E, Kaplan JT, Zaidel E, Iacoboni M. The neural correlates of social attention: Automatic orienting to social and nonsocial cues. Psychological Research. 2009; 73; 4: 499-511. 10.1007/s00426-009-0233-3. 19350270. 2694932</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffin AS. Social learning about predators: A review and prospectus. Learning &amp; Behavior. 2004; 32; 1: 131-140. 10.3758/BF03196014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Groppe DM, Urbach TP, Kutas M. Mass univariate analysis of event-related brain potentials/fields I: A critical tutorial review. Psychophysiology. 2011; 48; 12: 1711-1725. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01273.x. 21895683. 4060794</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haskins AJ, Mentch J, Botch TL, Garcia BD, Burrows AL, Robertson CE. Reduced social attention in autism is magnified by perceptual load in naturalistic environments. Autism Research. 2022; 15; 12: 2310-2323. 10.1002/aur.2829. 36207799. 10092155</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hinton J, Oviedo-Trespalacios O, Watson B, Haworth N. Beyond the billboard: A review of other external sources of driver distraction. Accident Analysis &amp; Prevention. 2024; 208. 10.1016/j.aap.2024.107771107771</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hirai M, Chang DHF, Saunders DR, Troje NF. Body configuration modulates the usage of local cues to direction in biological-motion perception. Psychological Science. 2011; 22; 12: 1543-1549. 10.1177/0956797611417257. 22082612</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hommel B, Pratt J, Colzato L, Godijn R. Symbolic control of visual attention. Psychological Science. 2001; 12; 5: 360-365. 10.1111/1467-9280.00367. 11554667</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang SQ, Ge YP, Wang L, Jiang Y. Life motion signals modulate visual working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin &amp; Review. 2024; 31; 1: 380-388. 10.3758/s13423-023-02362-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ji H, Wang L, Jiang Y. Cross-category adaptation of reflexive social attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2020; 149; 11: 2145-2153. 10.1037/xge0000766. 32352817</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johansson G. Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception &amp; Psychophysics. 1973; 14; 2: 201-211. 10.3758/bf03212378</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joseph RM, Fricker Z, Keehn B. Activation of frontoparietal attention networks by non-predictive gaze and arrow cues. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 2015; 10; 2: 294-301. 10.1093/scan/nsu054. 24748545</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirchgessner MA, Chuang AZ, Patel SS, Sereno AB. Intact reflexive but deficient voluntary social orienting in autism spectrum disorder. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2015; 9. 10.3389/fnins.2015.00453. 26648841. 4665260453</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Langton SRH. The mutual influence of gaze and head orientation in the analysis of social attention direction. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology. 2000; 53A; 3: 825-845. 10.1080/027249800410562</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Langton SRH, Bruce V. Reflexive visual orienting in response to the social attention of others. Visual Cognition. 1999; 6; 5: 541-567. 10.1080/135062899394939</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin ZC, Lu ZL, He S. Decomposing experience-driven attention: Opposite attentional effects of previously predictive cues. Attention Perception &amp; Psychophysics. 2016; 78; 7: 2185-2198. 10.3758/s13414-016-1101-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu WJ, Yuan XY, Liu DR, Wang L, Jiang Y. Social Attention Triggered by Eye Gaze and Walking Direction Is Resistant to Temporal Decay. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2021; 47; 9: 1237-1246. 10.1037/xhp0000939. 34694852</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lockhofen DEL, Gruppe H, Ruprecht C, Gallhofer B, Sammer G. Hemodynannic response pattern of spatial cueing is different for social and symbolic cues. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2014; 8. 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00912. 25426057. 4226146912</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lu X, Hu Z, Xin Y, Yang T, Wang Y, Zhang P, Liu N, Jiang Y. Detecting biological motion signals in human and monkey superior colliculus: A subcortical-cortical pathway for biological motion perception. Nature Communications. 2024; 15; 1. 10.1038/s41467-024-53968-x. 39505906. 115420259606</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lunghi M, Di Giorgio E, Benavides-Varela S, Simion F. Covert orienting of attention in 3-month-old infants: The case of biological motion. Infant Behavior &amp; Development. 2020; 58. 10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101422101422</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lunghi M, Piccardi ES, Richards JE, Simion F. The neural correlates of orienting to walking direction in 6-month-old infants: An ERP study. Developmental Science. 2019; 22; 6. 10.1111/desc.12811. 30740853. 6689458e12811</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marotta A, Lupiáñez J, Martella D, Casagrande M. Eye Gaze Versus Arrows as Spatial Cues: Two Qualitatively Different Modes of Attentional Selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance. 2012; 38; 2: 326-335. 10.1037/a0023959. 21688940</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Montoya AK. Selecting a Within- or Between-Subject Design for Mediation: Validity, Causality, and Statistical Power. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2023; 58; 3: 616-636. 10.1080/00273171.2022.2077287. 35679239</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nation K, Penny S. Sensitivity to eye gaze in autism: Is it normal? Is it automatic? Is it social?. Development and Psychopathology. 2008; 20; 1: 79-97. 10.1017/s0954579408000047. 18211729</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nummenmaa L, Hietanen JK. How attentional systems process conflicting cues. The superiority of social over symbolic orienting revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2009; 35; 6: 1738-1754. 10.1037/a0016472. 19968432</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pelli DG. The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision. 1997; 10; 4: 437-442. 10.1163/156856897x00366. 9176953</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pruett JR, LaMacchia A, Hoertel S, Squire E, McVey K, Todd RD, Constantino JN, Petersen SE. Social and Non-Social Cueing of Visuospatial Attention in Autism and Typical Development. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2011; 41; 6: 715-731. 10.1007/s10803-010-1090-z. 20809377. 3660145</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richards JE. Localizing the development of covert attention in infants with scalp event-related potentials. Developmental Psychology. 2000; 36; 1: 91-108. 10.1037/0012-1649.36.1.91. 10645747</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ristic J, Kingstone A. A new form of human spatial attention: Automated symbolic orienting. Visual Cognition. 2012; 20; 3: 244-264. 10.1080/13506285.2012.658101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ristic J, Wright A, Kingstone A. Attentional control and reflexive orienting to gaze and arrow cues. Psychonomic Bulletin &amp; Review. 2007; 14; 5: 964-969. 10.3758/bf03194129</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rombough A, Iarocci G. Orienting in response to gaze and the social use of gaze among children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2013; 43; 7: 1584-1596. 10.1007/s10803-012-1704-8. 23124360</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sato W, Kochiyama T, Uono S, Yoshikawa S. Commonalities in the neural mechanisms underlying automatic attentional shifts by gaze, gestures, and symbols. NeuroImage. 2009; 45; 3: 984-992. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.12.052. 19167506</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmitz I, Strauss H, Reinel L, Einhäuser W. Attentional cueing: Gaze is harder to override than arrows. PLoS ONE. 2024; 19; 3. 10.1371/journal.pone.0301136. 38547114. 10977674e0301136</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shalev N, Humphreys G, Demeyere N. Assessing the temporal aspects of attention and its correlates in aging and chronic stroke patients. Neuropsychologia. 2016; 92: 59-68. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.08.001. 27496786</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shi J, Weng X, He S, Jiang Y. Biological motion cues trigger reflexive attentional orienting. Cognition. 2010; 117; 3: 348-354. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.001. 20883983. 2967601</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singh T, Schöpper LM, Domes G, Frings C. Gaze cues vs. arrow cues at short vs. long durations. Visual Cognition. 2022; 30; 9: 587-596. 10.1080/13506285.2022.2154878</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sundfør HB, Sagberg F, Høye A. Inattention and distraction in fatal road crashes - Results from in-depth crash investigations in Norway. Accident Analysis &amp; Prevention. 2019; 125: 152-157. 10.1016/j.aap.2019.02.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson B, Hansen BC, Hess RF, Troje NF. Peripheral vision: Good for biological motion, bad for signal noise segregation?. Journal of Vision. 2007; 7; 10. 10.1167/7.10.1212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tipper CM, Handy TC, Giesbrecht B, Kingstone A. Brain responses to biological relevance. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2008; 20; 5: 879-891. 10.1162/jocn.2008.20510. 18201123</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tipples J. Eye gaze is not unique: Automatic orienting in response to uninformative arrows. Psychonomic Bulletin &amp; Review. 2002; 9; 2: 314-318. 10.3758/bf03196287</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tipples J. Orienting to counterpredictive gaze and arrow cues. Perception &amp; Psychophysics. 2008; 70; 1: 77-87. 10.3758/pp.70.1.77</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Troje NF. Decomposing biological motion: A framework for analysis and synthesis of human gait patterns. Journal of Vision. 2002; 2; 5: 371-387. 10.1167/2.5.2. 12678652</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Troje NF, Westhoff C. The inversion effect in biological motion perception: Evidence for a "life detector"?. Current Biology. 2006; 16; 8: 821-824. 10.1016/j.cub.2006.03.022. 16631591</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uono S, Sato W, Kochiyama T. Commonalities and differences in the spatiotemporal neural dynamics associated with automatic attentional shifts induced by gaze and arrows. Neuroscience Research. 2014; 87: 56-65. 10.1016/j.neures.2014.07.003. 25064015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vallortigara G, Regolin L. Gravity bias in the interpretation of biological motion by inexperienced chicks. Current Biology. 2006; 16; 8: R279-R280. 10.1016/j.cub.2006.03.052. 16631570</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Harten A, Gooszen HG, Koksma JJ, Niessen TJH, Abma TA. An observational study of distractions in the operating theatre. Anaesthesia. 2021; 76; 3: 346-356. 10.1111/anae.15217. 33252139</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Laarhoven AIM, van Damme S, Lavrijsen APM, van Ryckeghem DM, Crombez G, Evers AWM. Attentional processing of itch. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung. 2018; 82; 5: 876-888. 10.1007/s00426-017-0878-2. 28647846</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vanrie J, Verfaillie K. Perception of biological motion: A stimulus set of human point-light actions. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &amp; Computers. 2004; 36; 4: 625-629. 10.3758/bf03206542</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang B, Theeuwes J. Implicit attentional biases in a changing environment. Acta Psychologica. 2020; 206. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103064. 32416329103064</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang L, Wang Y, Xu Q, Liu D, Ji H, Yu Y, Hu Z, Yuan P, Jiang Y. Heritability of reflexive social attention triggered by eye gaze and walking direction: Common and unique genetic underpinnings. Psychological Medicine. 2020; 50; 3: 475-483. 10.1017/S003329171900031X. 30829191</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang L, Yang XY, Shi JF, Jiang Y. The feet have it: Local biological motion cues trigger reflexive attentional orienting in the brain. NeuroImage. 2014; 84: 217-224. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.041. 23994124</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang RD, Yuan T, Wang L, Jiang Y. A common and specialized neural code for social attention triggered by eye gaze and biological motion. NeuroImage. 2024; 301. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2024.120889. 39419423120889</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang F, Tian J, Yuan P, Liu C, Zhang X, Yang L, Jiang Y. Unconscious and conscious gaze-triggered attentional orienting: Distinguishing innate and acquired components of social attention in children and adults with autistic traits and Autism Spectrum Disorders. Research. 2024; 7. 10.34133/research.0417. 38988610. 112331940417</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yu Y, Ji H, Wang L, Jiang Y. Cross-modal social attention triggered by biological motion cues. Journal of Vision. 2020; 20; 10. 10.1167/jov.20.10.21. 33112938. 759462721</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yu YW, Wang L, Jiang Y. Gaze-triggered communicative intention compresses perceived temporal duration. Psychological Science. 2023; 34; 11: 1256-1270. 10.1177/09567976231198190. 37796658</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yuan T, Ji HY, Wang L, Jiang Y. Happy is stronger than sad: Emotional information modulates social attention. Emotion. 2023; 23; 4: 1061-1074. 10.1037/emo0001145. 35980685</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang S, Wang L, Jiang Y. Visual mental imagery of nonpredictive central social cues triggers automatic attentional orienting. Cognition. 2025; 254. 10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105968. 39362053105968</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhao J, Wang L, Wang Y, Weng X, Li S, Jiang Y. Developmental tuning of reflexive attentional effect to biological motion cues. Scientific Reports. 2014; 4. 10.1038/srep05558. 24990449. 40802205558</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhao S, Uono S, Yoshimura S, Kubota Y, Toichi M. Atypical gaze cueing pattern in a complex environment in individuals with ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2017; 47; 7: 1978-1986. 10.1007/s10803-017-3116-2. 28391454</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Xinyi Huang; Shujia Zhang; Li Wang and Yi Jiang</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref183"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref187"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref188"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref189"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref193"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref194"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref195"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref206"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref207"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref208"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref209"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref210"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref211"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref212"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref213"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref214"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref217"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref221"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref222"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref224"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1513232 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Reflexive Priority of Biological Motion in Attentional Orienting: Evidence from Conflict Resistance in Complex Visual Settings – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xinyi+Huang%22">Xinyi Huang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shujia+Zhang%22">Shujia Zhang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Li+Wang%22">Li Wang</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2204-5192">0000-0002-2204-5192</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yi+Jiang%22">Yi Jiang</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Cognitive+Research%3A+Principles+and+Implications%22"><i>Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications</i></searchLink>. 2026 11. – 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: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 17 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2026 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attention%22">Attention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Biology%22">Biology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Motion%22">Motion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Activities%22">Physical Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Eye+Movements%22">Eye Movements</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adjustment+%28to+Environment%29%22">Adjustment (to Environment)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cues%22">Cues</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Conflict%22">Conflict</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Resistance+%28Psychology%29%22">Resistance (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interference+%28Learning%29%22">Interference (Learning)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Relationship%22">Interpersonal Relationship</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1186/s41235-026-00721-1 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 2365-7464 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Humans involuntarily orient their attention to walking direction of biological motion (BM), a crucial skill for adaptive survival and social interaction. While previous studies have been limited to isolated BM displays, real-world scenarios typically include BM alongside multiple competing stimuli, hampering the translation of laboratory insights into practical applications. Here, we introduced simultaneously presented BM cues and other social (eye gaze) or nonsocial (arrow) cues into a modified central cueing paradigm, reassessing the reflexive nature of BM-induced attention from the perspective of conflict resistance. Results showed that the attentional orienting elicited by BM was robust enough to resist interference from peripheral arrows throughout the task yet interfered with central arrow processing. This unique asymmetric interference effect highlights the reflexive priority of BM over nonsocial cues. Additionally, mutual interference between BM and eye gaze suggests that different types of social cues trigger attentional shifts with a considerable degree of reflexivity. Based on an interference-resilient criterion, these findings together imply that social attention is supported by a specialized mechanism shared across various social but not nonsocial cues. This mechanism potentially enables us to instinctively prioritize and orient toward social signals amid competing nonsocial cues in complex real-world settings, with direct implications for designing signaling systems in safety-critical contexts and developing early diagnostic tools for sociocognitive disorders such as autism. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: Note Label: Notes Group: Note Data: https://doi.org/10.57760/sciencedb.18066 – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 20260101 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1513232 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1513232 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1186/s41235-026-00721-1 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 17 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Attention Type: general – SubjectFull: Biology Type: general – SubjectFull: Motion Type: general – SubjectFull: Physical Activities Type: general – SubjectFull: Eye Movements Type: general – SubjectFull: Adjustment (to Environment) Type: general – SubjectFull: Cues Type: general – SubjectFull: Conflict Type: general – SubjectFull: Resistance (Psychology) Type: general – SubjectFull: Interference (Learning) Type: general – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Relationship Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Reflexive Priority of Biological Motion in Attentional Orienting: Evidence from Conflict Resistance in Complex Visual Settings Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Xinyi Huang – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Shujia Zhang – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Li Wang – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Yi Jiang IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 12 Type: published Y: 2026 Identifiers: – Type: issn-electronic Value: 2365-7464 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 11 Titles: – TitleFull: Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
