Peak amplitude was assessed for the negative central (Nc) component
within a time window of 520–720 ms on the following channels: F3, C3, Fz, Cz, F4, C4. These were the channels with the most pronounced Nc amplitude, consistent with the fronto-central distribution of this component typically reported in the literature (de Haan, Johnson, & Halit, 2003; Wahl et al., 2012; Webb, Long, & Nelson, 2005). Event-related potentials (ERP) results are presented in Figure 2. Repeated-measures ANOVA was applied with the between-subject factor Cue Condition (eye gaze condition, head condition) and the within-subject factor Object (cued objects, uncued objects). Because preliminary analysis revealed no significant main effects or interactions involving electrode site, hemisphere, VX-809 price or region (frontal/central), results are reported for Nc amplitude averaged across the included channels. A significant Tamoxifen main effect of Object was found, F(1, 44) = 10.811, p = .002, η² = 0.197.
Nc amplitude was increased for the previously uncued objects (mean of −19.39 μV, standard error of 2.6 μV) compared with the previously cued objects (mean of −9.34 μV, standard error of 2.8 μV). No effect of Cue Condition or interaction effects were found. We present evidence that dynamic eye gaze and head orientation cues affect young infants’ processing of novel objects in a similar way. When a person turned only her gaze or only her head to the side, infants subsequently responded with longer looking times and an increased Nc response to objects that were not cued by the adult, thus replicating
earlier work that used only eye gaze or congruent gaze and head orientation cues (Reid & Striano, 2005; Wahl et al., 2012). Despite the fact that incongruence of head and gaze direction is presumably quite rare in natural Anidulafungin (LY303366) interactions, our results suggest that eye gaze and head orientation independently direct young infants’ attention to the side, thus facilitating processing of cued objects, rendering uncued objects relatively more novel, and requiring more elaborate processing. It is important to note that not all kinds of movement cues have this effect. As shown by Wahl et al. (2012), a car rotating to the side in a similar way as a turning head has no significant effect on infants’ behavioral or neural responses to peripherally presented objects. Thus, it seems that social cues of visual attention, such as eye gaze and head orientation, are somewhat specific in directing infants’ attention to objects.