Left Gaze Bias in Humans, Rhesus Monkeys and Domestic Dogs

Abstract

While viewing faces, human adults often demonstrate a natural gaze bias towards the left visual field, that is, the right side of the viewee's face is often inspected first and for longer periods. Using a preferential looking paradigm, we demonstrate that this bias is neither uniquely human nor limited to primates, and provide evidence to help elucidate its biological function within a broader social cognitive framework. We observed that 6-month-old infants showed a wider tendency for left gaze preference towards objects and faces of different species and orientation, while in adults the bias appears only towards upright human faces. Rhesus monkeys showed a left gaze bias towards upright human and monkey faces, but not towards inverted faces. Domestic dogs, however, only demonstrated a left gaze bias towards human faces, but not towards monkey or dog faces, nor to inanimate object images. Our findings suggest that face- and species-sensitive gaze asymmetry is more widespread in the animal kingdom than previously recognised, is not constrained by attentional or scanning bias, and could be shaped by experience to develop adaptive behavioural significance.

Full text

1
Left gaze bias in humans, rhesus monkeys and domestic dogs 1
2
Kun GuoP
1
P, Kerstin MeintsP
1
P, Charlotte HallP
1,2
P, Sophie HallP
1,2
P, Daniel MillsP
2
3
P
1
PDepartment of Psychology. P
2
PDepartment of Biological Sciences, 4
University of Lincoln, UK 5
6
7
8
9
Corresponding author: 10
Prof. Daniel Mills 11
Department of Biological Sciences 12
University of Lincoln 13
Lincoln LN2 2LG, UK, 14
e-mail: HTdmills@lincoln.ac.ukTH 15
Tel: +44-1522-895356 16
Fax: +44-1522-886026 17
18

2
Abstract 1
While viewing faces, human adults often demonstrate a natural gaze bias towards 2
the left visual field, that is, the right side of the viewee’s face is often inspected first and for 3
longer periods. Using a preferential looking paradigm, we demonstrate that this bias is 4
neither uniquely human nor limited to primates, and provide evidence to help elucidate its 5
biological function within a broader social cognitive framework. We observed that 6-6
month-old infants showed a wider tendency for left gaze preference towards objects and 7
faces of different species and orientation, while in adults the bias appears only towards 8
upright human faces. Rhesus monkeys showed a left gaze bias towards upright human and 9
monkey faces, but not towards inverted faces. Domestic dogs, however, only demonstrated 10
a left gaze bias towards human faces, but not towards monkey or dog faces, nor to 11
inanimate object images. Our findings suggest that face- and species-sensitive gaze 12
asymmetry is more widespread in the animal kingdom than previously recognised, is not 13
constrained by attentional or scanning bias, and could be shaped by experience to develop 14
adaptive behavioural significance. 15
16
Keywords: gaze asymmetry, face perception, lateralisation, development, phylogeny, 17
infants, monkeys, dogs 18
19
Introduction 20
Facial communication plays a crucial role in the social cognition of humans and 21
several species of non-human animals. Although faces are more or less symmetrical, 22
human face perception (i.e. judgement of gender, age, expression, likeness and 23
attractiveness) mostly relies on facial information contained in the right side of the owners’ 24
face (left side of the viewed face from viewer’s perspective) (e.g. Gilbert and Bakan 1973; 25

3
Grega et al 1988; Burt and Perrett 1997). For instance, when asked to judge the facial 1
expression of a briefly presented chimeric face image, in which the left and right side of the 2
viewed face differ on facial expression, human viewers tend to base their decision more 3
frequently on the expression contained within the right side of the owner’s face, i.e. the left 4
hemiface for the viewer. This left perceptual bias in face perception is often accompanied 5
and enhanced by a left gaze bias (LGB), defined by the higher probability of first gaze and 6
a higher proportion of viewing time directed at the left hemiface, when actively exploring 7
face images (Mertens et al. 1993; Philips and David 1997; Butler et al. 2005; Bulter and 8
Harvey 2006). In other words, the left hemiface is often inspected first and/or for longer 9
periods. 10
Although human visuospatial attention bias is to the left visual field (Rhodes 1986; 11
Vaid and Singh 1989; Nicholls and Roberts 2002; Niemeier et al. 2007) and in some 12
cultures, a long practised left-to-right directional scanning bias (most notably, reading) 13
(Gilbert and Bakan 1973; Vaid and Singh 1989; Heath et al. 2005) may contribute to this 14
gaze asymmetry, it is often argued that a right hemisphere advantage in face processing 15
(receiving visual input from left visual field) is the likely cause of LGB (Burt and Perrett 16
1997; Butler et al. 2005; Leonards and Scott-Samuel 2005). As a consequence, if a face is 17
initially presented within a viewer’s central visual field, the left hemiface is projected to the 18
face-sensitive right hemisphere, where its saliency is more readily evaluated, causing an 19
increase in the viewer’s attention as necessary. A recent study of judging the gender of 20
chimeric faces showed that on trials where participants based their decision on the gender 21
cues contained in the left side of the chimeric face, they fixated more often and longer on 22
the left hemiface (Bulter et al. 2005), further suggesting that LGB is closely associated with 23
the perceptual processing of facial information, and could be part of eye scanning patterns 24
associated with face exploration. 25

4
However, it remains unclear how this face-related LGB develops in human and 1
whether it is restricted to human or could evolve (homologously or analogously) in other 2
species living in complex social environments. To address these questions, we 3
systematically investigated gaze asymmetries in two comparative studies investigating gaze 4
direction in human infants and adults and also in rhesus monkeys and domestic dogs while 5
exploring various images of faces and objects. 6
7
Experiment 1: LGB in human infants and adults: developmental study 8
It has been suggested that human face processing involves a face-specific cognitive 9
and neural mechanism (McKone et al. 2006; see also Tarr and Cheng 2003) which is 10
species- and orientation-sensitive. Specifically, human adults differentiate faces of their 11
own species (or even own race) better than faces of other species (or other races). However, 12
this superior recognition performance deteriorates once the face is turned up-side down, 13
and such a face inversion effect, one hallmark differentiating face processing from object 14
processing, is more evident for own species, i.e. stronger for human than monkey faces 15
(Diamond and Carey 1986; Tanaka et al. 2004; Bukach et al. 2006; McKone et al. 2006; 16
Mondloch et al. 2006). It is likely that this sensitivity towards conspecific faces with 17
upright orientation is closely associated with or even shaped by our extensive experience of 18
identifying upright conspecific faces, probably through the process of perceptual narrowing 19
(Pascalis et al. 2001, 2002; Grossmann and Johnson 2007). For instance, 6-month-old 20
human infants perform equally well at discriminating individual human or monkey faces, 21
but 9-month-olds start to show better performance for recognizing human faces (Pascalis et 22
al. 2002). 23
If the LGB is closely associated with the processing of facial information, it could 24
also be expected to show not only sensitivity to the orientation and species of the viewed 25

5
face, but also differences during development. We examined these questions systematically 1
in this study by comparing gaze asymmetries in human infants and adults while free 2
viewing various face and object images with normal and inverted orientation. As face 3
inversion alters global facial configuration but does not change image symmetry along 4
vertical axis nor the local image properties of individual facial features (i.e. local contrast), 5
inverted faces not only serve as ideal control images for upright faces, but also contribute 6
to efforts to address the neural mechanisms underling LGB if different patterns of gaze 7
asymmetries are elicited in response to upright and inverted faces. 8
9
Method 10
Nineteen 6-month-old infants (11 boys and 8 girls, 4.9 – 7.7 months old with mean 11
of 6.22 ± 0.22 (mean ± SEM)) and 19 adults (11 males and 8 females, 19-39 years old with 12
mean of 20.84 ± 1.13) participated in the study. All children were born full-term and were 13
in good health. Ethical approval had been granted and all procedures complied with British 14
Psychological Society Ethical guidance. 15
Visual stimuli included 20 face images with neutral facial expression (5 upright and 16
5 inverted human faces, 5 upright and 5 inverted monkey faces) and 10 symmetrical 17
inanimate object images (see image examples in Fig. 1). The common object images were 18
sampled from our daily environment, and could be categorically familiar to the infants as 19
indicated by the parents. The gray scale digitized images were gamma-corrected and back-20
projected once at eye-level on the center of a projection screen with a resolution of 21
600×600 pixels. No two images of the same category were presented consecutively. At a 22
viewing distance of 70cm the image subtended a visual angle of 72×72°. 23
The intermodal preferential looking paradigm (Meints et al. 1999) was employed to 24
measure gaze preference. During the experiments the infants were seated on their parent’s 25

6
lap in a quiet, dim-lit test room, and binocularly viewed the display. The parents were 1
asked to close their eyes during the experiment and to listen to instructions played over 2
headphones which reminded them to sit quietly and to keep the infant seated in a central 3
position. The trial was started with a flashing red fixation point (FP, 8° in diameter) 4
presented on the centre of the screen. The infant’s head and eye positions were on-line 5
monitored by the researcher through CCTV. Once the infant’s gaze was oriented towards 6
the FP, a single image was presented for 5 seconds. The onset of the image presentation 7
was accompanied by a female auditory instruction “look” delivered through a loudspeaker 8
positioned centrally above the displayed images. 9
During the experiment, the researcher was not visible. The overall order of all trials 10
shown to a given infant was pseudo-randomised. Inter-trial intervals varied with the 11
infant’s attention on the task with a minimum duration of 0.5 second. A new trial was not 12
launched until infants had centred their gaze either spontaneously or when attracted by the 13
flashing FP. All of the tested infants successfully completed all the trials (30 in total). The 14
same procedure, but without a parent, was employed for the testing of human adults. 15
The participant’s eye position and head movements were recorded by two miniature 16
cameras, and then digitized with a sampling frequency of 60 Hz. The data image was replayed 17
off-line frame by frame for accurate analysis by two researchers independently. The direction 18
of participant’s gaze was classified as ‘left’, ‘right’ and ‘central’ looking accordingly. The 19
researchers were blind to the test images for each trial when performing off-line data analysis, 20
and inter-judge reliability measures between two researchers yielded correlations of 0.96 for 21
infants’ data, and 0.95 for adults’ data. 22
. 23
Results 24

7
To address when and how the LGB develops in humans, we compared the gaze 1
preferences of 19 6-month-old human infants and 19 adults while free viewing human and 2
monkey faces (both upright and inverted) and symmetric familiar object images. The 3
images of different categories appeared to attract about the same amount of viewing time 4
within the group of infants (Table 1). On average, human infants spent 64-69% (ANOVA, 5
FB(4,94)B=0.46, P=0.76) of the 5-second image presentation time viewing different classes of 6
face and object images. By contrast human adults spent 96-98% (ANOVA, FB(4,94)B=0.68, 7
P=0.60) of the time viewing the different images classes. 8
We then examined whether the left hemi-image attracted a higher probability of 9
first gaze direction after image presentation, and a higher proportion of viewing time 10
during image presentation. Paired one-tailed t-tests were used for each image category after 11
an ANOVA test to determine a significant general main effect of left-right bias across all 12
image categories. We also calculated Prep and effect sizes (d) to estimate the probability of 13
replicating the effect (TKilleenTT TT2005T). Human infants showed a consistent general LGB 14
while exploring the images (ANOVA, first gaze direction: FB(1,189)B=27.15, P=5.11E-7, Fig. 15
1A; viewing time: FB(1,189)B=35.38, P=1.38E-8, Fig.1B). Specifically, the left side of upright 16
human and monkey faces were inspected first (>63% of probability, t(18)=1.96 and 2.68, 17
p=0.03 and 0.007, Prep=0.9 and 0.99, d=0.83 and 1.05) and longer (>59% of image 18
viewing time, t(18)=1.74 and 2.89, p=0.05 and 0.005, Prep=0.94 and 0.99, d=0.79 and 19
1.33) as were the left sides of object images (first gaze direction: t(18)=1.97, p=0.03, 20
Prep=0.96, d=0.91; viewing time: t(18)=1.75, p=0.048, Prep=0.95, d=0.81), suggesting a 21
non-face-specific gaze asymmetry. Furthermore, the left side of inverted monkey faces also 22
attracted longer viewing time (t(18)=2.51, p=0.01, Prep=0.94; d=0.96), suggesting that the 23
gaze asymmetry in 6-month-olds is not sensitive to face orientation in species other than 24
their own. 25

8
Human adults also demonstrated general main effect of LGB for image exploration 1
(ANOVA, first gaze direction: FB(1,189)B=88.04, P=2.8E-17, Fig. 1C; viewing time: 2
FB(1,189)B=11.82, P=7.27E-4, Fig.1D). However, when taking individual image category into 3
account, a more restricted pattern of LGB was revealed: the adults showed a clear LGB 4
only towards faces, not objects. Although the left sides of both upright and inverted human 5
or monkey faces were inspected first (t(18)=2.35–5.71, p=0.00001–0.02, Prep=0.94–0.99), 6
only the left side of human upright faces was inspected for a longer period (t(18)=2.28, 7
p=0.02, Prep=0.93; d=0.93), suggesting that in adults, the LGB is face-specific and also 8
sensitive to face orientation and species. Overall, infant results displayed a larger data 9
variance than the adult population. This is not uncommon in infant studies and 10
demonstrates the variability in development and lack of refinement of the process in this 11
population compared to an identically sized adult population. 12
13
Discussion 14
Our differing observations in human infants and adults suggest that the specific 15
LGB towards faces is an acquired behaviour, possibly through the process of “perceptual 16
narrowing”. It has been proposed that the development of face perception is a modality-17
specific and experience-dependent process of gradual specialisation (de Haan et al. 2002; 18
Grossmann and Johnson 2007). For instance, 6-month-old infants are equally good at 19
recognising individual monkey and human faces, but 9-month-olds show a marked 20
advantage in recognizing human faces (Pascalis et al. 2002), indicating a narrowing or 21
specialising of perceptual ability in face perception. Similarly, young infants show a 22
general, inherent LGB for all visual images, which later transforms itself into a more 23
specific LGB for human faces only. Studies of perceptual asymmetries in face processing 24
have previously shown that by the age of 5 years, children demonstrate a face-specific left 25

9
perceptual bias (Failla et al. 2003) and that its magnitude increases from 6 to 10-years of 1
age (Chiang et al. 2000). 2
The different patterns of gaze asymmetry when viewing different image categories 3
in human adults also shed some light onto possible neural mechanism underling this LGB 4
phenomenon. The LGB was most evident for upright faces, less evident for inverted faces 5
and totally absent for object images, suggesting that the visuospatial attention bias towards 6
the left visual field (Rhodes 1986; Nicholls and Roberts 2002; Niemeier et al. 2007) and 7
our extensively-practised left-to-right directional scanning bias (Gilbert and Bakan 1973; 8
Vaid and Singh 1989; Heath et al. 2005) cannot fully account for the observed face-specific 9
LGB. The well documented human right-hemispheric advantage for face processing, on the 10
other hand, offers a consistent explanation. Various brain imaging studies have revealed a 11
strong right-hemispheric bias in processing upright faces, delayed and reduced right-12
hemisphere response in processing inverted faces, and bilateral responses in processing 13
object images (e.g. Rossion et al. 2003; Yovel and Kanwisher 2005; Bukach et al. 2006; 14
Grossmann and Johnson 2007). Our observed systematic change of LGB pattern towards 15
different image categories seems to be consistent with reported changes of the distribution 16
of cortical responses, providing further support for cortical lateralisation in human face 17
processing. 18
The ability to detect/recognize facial cues (i.e. facial expression, gaze direction) and 19
to respond accordingly also plays a crucial role in social communication of non-human 20
primates and other social species (e.g. Emery 2000; Parr et al. 2000; Hare and Tomasello 21
2005), but the broader biological context of this phenomenon has been largely ignored until 22
now. It has been suggested that functional brain lateralisation in perception and cognition is 23
not a uniquely human attribute, but exists in other non-human social species which could 24
be shaped by the selection pressure of living in complex social environments and 25

10
performing intensive social communication during the evolution, at least at population 1
level (e.g. Vallortigara and Rogers 2005). As in humans, the dominant role of the right 2
hemisphere in social cognition as well as in individual recognition mediated by visual cues 3
has been observed in other social species such as fish (Sovrano et al. 1999), domestic 4
chicks (Vallortigara 1992; Vllortigara and Andrew 1991, 1994), quails (Zucca and Sovrano 5
2008), sheep (Kendrick 2006), monkeys (Hamilton and Vermeire 1988; Hauser 1993; 6
Vermeire and Hamilton 1998) and chimpanzees (Morris and Hopkins 1993). 7
We hypothesise that if the LGB is mediated by a right hemisphere bias in face 8
processing and if it is of broader adaptive value to social species, then it may also occur 9
among non-human species adapted to living in complex social environments. This 10
possibility is examined in our second study in which we investigated gaze asymmetries in 11
rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) while exploring 12
various face and object images. Macaques were chosen because of their relatively close 13
evolutionary relationship to humans, and their naturally complex social environment; 14
whereas dogs were chosen because they are more distantly related, but given their close 15
social association with humans and enculturation, they might also benefit from such a 16
capacity of LGB, if it is indeed associated with social cognition. 17
18
Experiment 2: LGB in rhesus monkeys and domestic dogs: phylogenetic study 19
To address the question of whether a face-specific LGB is restricted to human or to 20
primate species, or whether it is perhaps found more extensively among species living in 21
complex social environments, we examined the responses of rhesus monkeys (Macaca 22
mulatta) and domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). As rhesus monkeys rely heavily on facial 23
cues for social communication (Rosenfeld and van Hoesen 1979; Mendelson et al. 1982; 24
Parr et al. 2000) and possess a similar oculomotor strategy and cortical mechanism for face 25

11
perception as humans (Rossion and Gauthier 2002; Guo et al. 2003; Guo 2007), we 1
hypothesised that laboratory-raised monkeys might be good non-human candidates for the 2
demonstration of a LGB while viewing faces of conspecifics and humans. Domestic dogs, 3
on the other hand, have been domesticated for at least 10,000 years and possibly much 4
longer (Vilà et al. 1997). They have shown greater attachment (Topál et al. 2005) and 5
attention bias (Miklósi et al. 2003; Virányi et al. 2008) towards people compared to their 6
close relative, the wolf. Their sensitivity to human cues exceeds that of non-human 7
primates in certain tasks such as following human gaze directional cues, and it is 8
hypothesised that they may have evolved a special predisposition for communicating with 9
humans (Hare et al. 2002; Miklósi et al. 2003; Hare and Tomasello 2005). Pet dogs are 10
additionally encultured into the human environment and so such biases may be further 11
adapted in this subpopulation. Consequently, pet dogs were chosen as a non-primate social 12
species that might benefit from any adaptive advantage associated with a LGB towards 13
human faces and possibly other dog faces, but not necessarily towards faces from other 14
species or objects. 15
16
Method 17
Recording from rhesus monkeys 18
Three male adult rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta, 4.5-6.0 kg) were tested in this 19
study at the Department of Psychology, University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Initially, the 20
monkeys were trained to fixate on a FP on a computer screen for several seconds in a 21
dimming fixation detection task (Guo and Benson 1998). For the purpose of eye movement 22
recordings, a scleral eye coil and head restraint were then implanted under aseptic 23
conditions. Throughout the period of the recordings, the animal’s weight and general health 24
were monitored daily. Ethical approval had been granted and all procedures complied with 25

12
the “Principles of laboratory animal care” (NIH publication no. 86-23, revised 1985) and 1
UK Home Office regulations. 2
Visual stimuli were generated using a VSG 2/3W graphics system (Cambridge 3
Research Systems) and displayed on a high frequency non-interlaced gamma-corrected 4
color monitor (110 Hz, Sony GDM-F500T9) with the resolution of 1024×768 pixels. At a 5
viewing distance of 57 cm the monitor subtended a visual angle of 40×30°. The mean 6
luminance of uniform grey background was kept at 6.0 cd/mP
2
P. 7
Twenty monkey and 20 human face images with neutral facial expressions were 8
used as stimuli (see image examples in Fig. 2). The gray scale digitized images were 9
gamma-corrected and displayed once in a random order at the center of the screen with a 10
resolution of 512×512 pixels (20×20° visual angle). 11
During the experiments the monkeys were seated in a purpose-built primate chair 12
with their head restrained, and they viewed the display binocularly. To calibrate eye 13
movement signals, a small red FP (0.2° diameter, 7.8 cd/mP
2
Pluminance) was displayed 14
randomly at one of twenty-five positions (5×5 matrix) across the monitor. The distance 15
between adjacent FP positions was 5°. The monkey was trained to follow the FP and 16
maintain fixation for 1 second. After the calibration procedure, the trial was started with a 17
FP displayed on the center of monitor, and the monkey’s eye positions were on-line 18
monitored by the custom-made software. If the monkey maintained fixation for 1 second, 19
the FP disappeared and a single face image was presented for 10 seconds. During the 20
presentation, three monkeys passively viewed monkey face images, and two of them also 21
viewed human face images. No reinforcement was given during this procedure, neither 22
were the animals trained on any other task with these stimuli, which could have potentially 23
affected their behavior. It was considered that with their lack of training, and in the absence 24
of instrumental responding, their behavior should be as natural as possible. 25

13
Horizontal and vertical eye positions were measured using an 18-inch cubic scleral 1
search coil assembly with 6 min arc sensitivity (CNC Engineering). Eye movement signals 2
were amplified by a CNC system and sampled at 500 Hz through the analogue inputs of 3
CED1401 plus digital interface (Cambridge Electronic Design). The data were then 4
analysed off-line using software developed in Matlab. The software computed horizontal 5
and vertical eye displacement signals as a function of time to determine eye velocity and 6
position. Fixation locations were then extracted from the raw eye tracking data using 7
velocity (less than 0.2° eye displacement at a velocity of less than 20°/s) and duration 8
(greater than 50 ms) criteria (Guo et al. 2003, 2006). 9
Recording from pet dogs 10
Seventeen adult domestic pet dogs (Canis familiaris, 2-7 years old, 3 Labrador, 3 11
Border Collie, 3 Lurcher, 2 Jack Russell, 1 Border Terrier, 1 Leonberger, 1 Schnauzer, 1 12
Staffordshire Terrier, 1 Spanish Water Dog, 1 Golden Cocker Spaniel) were recruited from 13
university staff and students for this experiment. University ethical approval had been 14
granted and all procedures complied with ethical guidance of the International Society for 15
Applied Ethology. 16
Visual stimuli were generated using customized presentation software and back-17
projected on the center of a projection screen. At a viewing distance of 41 cm the screen 18
subtended a visual angle of 100×163°. 30 face images with neutral facial expressions and 19
10 symmetrical inanimate object images were used as stimuli (see image examples in Fig. 20
2). The face images included 5 upright and 5 inverted human faces, 5 upright and 5 21
inverted monkey faces, 5 upright and 5 inverted dog faces. The common object images 22
were sampled from the daily environment, and could be categorically familiar to the dogs 23
as indicated by the owners. The gray scale digitized images were gamma-corrected and 24
displayed once in a random order at the center of the screen with a resolution of 600×600 25

14
pixels (87×87° visual angle). No two images of the same category were presented 1
consecutively. To reduce degree of left-right image asymmetry commonly associated with 2
dog faces (i.e. facial color/hair pattern), we created left-mirror left composite chimeric 3
images for 8 dog faces and 8 object images used in this experiment. This manipulation is 4
widely adopted in studies of left perceptual bias and left gaze bias in face processing, and 5
has generated consistent observation similar as those generated by natural face images 6
across different laboratories, for human participants (e.g. Mertens et al. 1993; Butler et al. 7
2005; Leonards and Scott-Samuel 2005). 8
The preferential-looking procedure was adapted to test dog’s gaze preference 9
(Meints et al. 1999). During the experiment the dog was seated in a quiet, dim-lit test room 10
and binocularly viewed the display which was 41 cm away. A researcher stood behind the 11
dog and did not interfere with the dog or coerce it to watch the screen. The dog owner was 12
instructed to keep quiet and stay outside of the test room. A CCTV camera (SONY SSC-13
M388CE, resolution: 380 horizontal) placed in front of the dog was used to monitor and 14
record the dog’s eye and head movements. The trial was started with a flashing red FP (10° 15
in diameter) presented in the centre of the screen at the dog’s eye level. The dog’s head and 16
eye positions were on-line monitored by the researcher through CCTV. Once the dog’s 17
gaze was oriented towards the FP a single image was presented for 5 seconds. During the 18
presentation, the dog passively viewed face and object images. No reinforcement was given 19
during this procedure, neither were the dogs trained on any other task with these stimuli. A 20
short break was provided after every 10 trials if necessary. All of the dogs successfully 21
tested completed at least 65% of the trials (82 ± 2%). 22
The dog’s eye and head movements were recorded and then digitised with a sampling 23
frequency of 60 Hz. The image was replayed off-line frame by frame for accurate analysis by 24
two researchers independently, and the direction of the dog’s gaze was classified as ‘left’, 25

15
‘right’ and ‘central’ looking accordingly. The researchers were blind to the test images for each 1
trial when performing off-line data analysis, and inter-judge reliability measures yielded 2
correlations of 0.98 between two researchers. 3
4
Results 5
We very precisely recorded monkeys’ gaze patterns with implanted scleral search 6
coils, but the invasive nature of this recording methodology restricts the number of 7
monkeys that can be ethically used in such studies (e.g. Guo et al. 2003, 2006). Therefore 8
the analysis was carried out after pooling the data from three monkeys (i.e. t-test was 9
performed over the trials rather than subjects). As we did not intend to quantitatively 10
compare the magnitude of LGB across different species in this study, such an approach can 11
help to qualitatively establish whether the face-related LGB exists in non-human primates. 12
No statistical difference was observed in the cumulative viewing time across the 13
entire set of human and monkey faces with different orientations (Table 1). The monkeys 14
on average spent 44-52% of image presentation time viewing different categories of face 15
images (ANOVA, FB(3,132)B=1.52, P=0.21). ANOVA tests of main effect of left-right bias 16
across all images revealed a general LGB associated with face exploration (first gaze 17
direction: FB(1,261)B=8.47, P=0.004, Fig. 2A; viewing time: FB(1,261)B=12.51, P=1.0E-6, Fig.2B). 18
Specifically, the left side of upright monkey and human faces had a significantly higher 19
probability of being the first saccade destination (77% and 65% for monkey and human 20
faces; paired one-tailed t-test, t(59)=4.84 and 1.96, p=4.81E-6 and 0.03, Prep=0.99 and 21
0.91) than the right hemiface, and attracted more fixations (61% and 60% of total fixations 22
per image for monkey and human faces; t(59)=4.37and 4.01, p=2.52E-5 and 1.3E-4, 23
Prep=0.99 and 0.98). Once the faces were inverted, although image symmetry was constant 24

16
along the vertical axis, the left and right hemiface appeared to be equally salient 1
(t(17)=0.17-0.46, p=0.33-0.43). 2
The highly sensitive technique used in laboratory monkeys was not appropriate for 3
pet dogs and so the preferential looking paradigm was used to compare the gaze 4
preferences of 17 owner-volunteered dogs while viewing human, dog and monkey faces, 5
and symmetrical object images. On average, the dogs spent 43-47% of the 5-second image 6
presentation time inspecting different types of face and object images (Table1), and no 7
significant difference in viewing time was observed across these image categories 8
(ANOVA, FB(6,118)B=0.51, P=0.80). 9
Analysis of gaze preference showed a significant main effect of general LGB for 10
image viewing (first gaze direction: FB(1,237)B=20.59, P=9.28E-6; viewing time: FB(1,237)B=14.95, 11
P=1.45E-4). Paired one-tailed t-test further revealed that the left side of both upright and 12
inverted human faces had a higher probability of being the first inspected region by the 13
dogs (65% and 67% for upright and inverted human faces; t(16)=2.99 and 3.18, p=0.004 14
and 0.003, Prep=0.97 and 0.97; Fig. 2C). There was no significant difference in the 15
probability of first inspection between the two sides of dog faces, monkey faces and object 16
images (t(16)=0.27-1.12, p=0.14–0.40). An analysis of the averaged proportion of viewing 17
time towards each side of the images within a trial showed that only the left side of upright 18
human faces attracted significantly longer inspection (62% of total viewing time; 19
t(16)=2.67, p=0.008, Prep=0.95; Fig 2D). The dogs spent a similar amount of looking time 20
at both sides of the images while viewing inverted human faces, both upright and inverted 21
dog or monkey faces, and object images (t(16)=0.52-1.69, p=0.06-0.30). 22
23
Discussion 24

17
Our observations show that gaze asymmetry is not restricted to humans, and could 1
have broader adaptive significance. Laboratory-raised monkeys showed a LGB towards 2
faces of conspecifics and humans while pet dogs only demonstrated a LGB towards human 3
faces, but not monkey or dog faces, nor towards object images. We suggest that these 4
specific results are compatible with the animals’ normal communicative strategies given 5
monkeys’ reliance on social cues and dogs’ unique evolutionary and ontogenetic history. 6
All dogs in this study were well socialised to both people and other dogs. We therefore 7
argue that the bias towards human faces alone cannot be explained simply in terms of lack 8
of exposure to conspecifics, but that it may have a more fundamental phylogenetic origin. 9
The ability to extract information from human faces and respond appropriately could have 10
had a selective advantage during the process of domestication, especially as the emotional 11
content of these faces may be of immediate adaptive behavioural significance. Indeed, 12
recent studies have shown that the owner’s right hemiface (left hemiface from viewer’s 13
perspective) can express a range of emotional expressions more accurately, and more 14
importantly, can express specifically the negative expression of, evoked anger, more 15
intensely (e.g. Indersmitten and Gur 2003). As the LGB directs the viewer’s attention to 16
this side of face image, it could help the viewer detect and recognize biologically important 17
information more quickly and precisely in faces of functional significance. 18
The maintenance of the bias by dogs towards inverted human faces may also be 19
specifically important for this species. Dogs will frequently roll over and look up at human 20
faces in initial social exchanges as an appeasement gesture and the ability to read the 21
human face in this context may be important to establish if appeasement has succeeded. If 22
LGB has its origins in right hemisphere specialisation for facial processing, it would be 23
surprising if the behaviour could be reversed when the dog is viewing a face upside down, 24
although this would allow preferential inspection of the right side of the viewee’s face. 25

18
Dogs may not show a bias towards monkey faces because of their unfamiliarity or 1
irrelevance compared to human faces, although the differentiating criteria remain to be 2
established. However, a failure to show LGB towards dog faces might reflect a reduced 3
dependence on facial processing in the initial assessment of conspecifics in this species, 4
with greater facial asymmetry in this species and non-facial greeting including olfactory 5
cues and visual cues of body postures perhaps being of greater significance. 6
7
General discussion 8
With the presentation of object images and faces of different species with upright 9
and inverted orientation, in this comparative study we systematically examined the face-10
related LGB, defined by the higher probability of first gaze and a higher proportion of 11
viewing time directed at the left hemiface, in human infants, human adults, rhesus monkeys 12
and domestic dogs. While human infants showed a more general bias towards the left side 13
of a visual image (mostly for upright images), adults demonstrated a very specific LGB 14
towards upright human faces only. Laboratory-reared monkeys showed selective LGB 15
towards upright human and monkey faces, while pet dogs only attended to the left side of 16
human faces. Taken together, our results suggest that the face-specific LGB is not apparent 17
in human infants, but develops over time; also, our evidence shows that the LGB is not a 18
human-specific phenomenon, but seems to have broader adaptive value to social species. 19
Interestingly, both human adults and dogs demonstrated a LGB towards a broader 20
range of face types at the earliest stage of face viewing (human and monkey faces with 21
different orientations for human observers, upright and inverted human faces for dogs; Fig. 22
1C and 2C), adding further support to the hypothesis that the initial gaze bias for faces is 23
automatic and internally-driven (Leonards and Scott-Samuel 2005), probably initiated by 24
the gist configuration of face stimuli. After initial analysis, the LGB could be refined 25

19
towards more efficient processing of biologically relevant faces (in our case, upright human 1
faces for both adult human participants and pet dogs, Fig. 1D and 2D), and would be less 2
evident for irrelevant faces or inverted faces as face inversion would alter global 3
configuration of facial features and reduce efficiency and accuracy of face processing 4
(Valentine 1988; Rossion and Gauthier 2002). A recent correlation study in humans also 5
suggests that only an overall leftward face scanning bias (i.e. total number of left hemiface 6
fixation within a trial), rather than initial gaze bias, can be correlated with perceptual 7
processing of facial cues (Bulter et al. 2005). 8
In our study, we did not observe a consistent gaze bias towards object images in 9
human adults and dogs, or towards inverted faces in monkeys. This observation rules out 10
general preferential attention towards the left visual field and extensively-practised left-to-11
right scanning bias in humans as specific explanations for the LGB phenomenon. A recent 12
recording of human saccadic eye movements in face processing also demonstrated that the 13
initial gaze bias is the most evident while exploring upright faces, and is less or not evident 14
while exploring inverted faces and symmetric non-face object or landscape images 15
(Leonards and Scott-Samuel 2005). Taken together, the face- and orientation-sensitive 16
LGB we observed here is most likely due to a lateralised right hemisphere bias for face 17
processing which has been revealed by studies of brain imaging and patients with focal 18
brain lesions (e.g. Farah and Aguirre 1999; Bukach et al. 2006; Grossmann and Johnson 19
2007). 20
Unlike humans and monkeys, relatively little is known about cerebral lateralization 21
in dogs from neuroimaging approach. However, some behaviour studies on paw preference 22
(Tan 1987; Wells 2003; Quaranta et al. 2004; Branson and Rogers 2006; Poyser et al. 23
2006) and tail-wagging response (Quaranta et al. 2007) have suggested a functional brain 24
asymmetry in dogs which may even correlate with their immune system function (Quaranta 25

20
et al. 2006, 2008). The right hemisphere also has greater mass, and this appears to be 1
independent of laterality in certain forms of motor behaviour (Tan and Çalşikan 1987), 2
which would be consistent with laterality in certain perceptual processes. Our observation 3
of LGB towards human faces provides new evidence to support this hypothesis, with brain 4
lateralization apparent in face processing in dogs. Furthermore, this prominent gaze 5
asymmetry could be a useful non-invasive tool in the wider study of some aspects of social 6
cognition (e.g. facial signalling) in those species who exhibit a bias. 7
As the recognition of facial expression is a crucial part of social cognition, right 8
hemisphere dominance in emotional processing, such as in detecting facial movements (i.e. 9
lip smacking; Ferrari et al. 2003; Leslie et al. 2004) and judging negative emotions (i.e. fear 10
and anger; Asthana and Mandall 2001; Indersmitten and Gur 2003), may also steer the 11
initiation of gaze asymmetry towards faces. Overall, it seems likely that the affective and 12
semantic information contained in those faces with adaptive behavioural significance for 13
the species concerned, are the most likely determinants of face-related LGB. In other 14
words, the LGB may not just be initiated by the gist configuration of the faces in an 15
automatic fashion, but is actively engaged in the processing of relevant facial cues. 16
Consequently, the amplitude of LGB could well be affected by different type of facial 17
information. This issue is currently under investigation by our group. 18
19
References 20 21
Asthana HS, Mandal MK (2001) Visual field bias in the judgment of facial expression of 22
emotion. J Gen Psychol 128:21-29 23
24
Branson NJ, Rogers LJ (2006) Relationship between paw preference strength and noise 25
phobia in Canis familiaris. J Comp Psychol 120: 176-183 26
27
Bukach CM, Gauthier I, Tarr M (2006) Beyond faces and modularity: the power of an 28
expertise framework. Trends Cogn Sci 10:159-166 29
30

21
Burt DM, Perrett DI (1997) Perceptual asymmetries in judgements of facial attractiveness, 1
age, gender, speech and expression. Neuropsychologia 35:685-693 2
3
Butler S, Gilchrist ID, Burt DM, Perrett DI, Jones E, Harvey M (2005) Are the perceptual 4
biases found in chimeric face processing reflected in eye-movement patterns? 5
Neuropsychologia 43:52-59 6
7
Bulter SH, Harvey M (2006) Perceptual biases in chimeric face processing: eye-movement 8
patterns cannot explain it all. Brain Res 1124:96-99 9
10
Chiang CH, Ballantyne AO, Trauner DA (2000) Development of perceptual asymmetry for 11
free viewing of chimeric stimuli. Brain Cognit 44:415-425 12
13
Tde Haan M, Pascalis O, Johnson MH (2002) TSpecialization of neural mechanisms 14
underlying face recognition in human infants. J Cognit Neurosci 14:199-209 15
16
Diamond R, Carey S (1986) Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. J 17
Exp Psychol Gen 115:107–117 18
19
Emery NJ (2000) The eyes have it: the neuroethology, function and evolution of social 20
gaze. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 24:581–604 21
22
Failla CV, Sheppard DM, Bradshaw JL (2003) Age and responding-hand related changes 23
in performance of neurologically normal subjects on the line-bisection and chimeric-faces 24
tasks. Brain Cognit 52:353-363 25
26
Farah MJ, Aguirre GK (1999) Imaging visual recognition: PET and fMRI studies of the 27
functional anatomy of human visual recognition. Trends Cogn Sci 3:179-186 28
29
Ferrari PF, Gallese V, Rizzolatti G, Fogassi L (2003) Mirror neurons responding to the 30
observation of ingestive and communicative mouth actions in the monkey ventral premotor 31
cortex. Eur J Neurosci 17:1703-1714 32
33
Gilbert C, Bakan P (1973) Visual asymmetry in perception of faces. Neuropsychologia 34
11:355-362 35
36
Grega DM, Sackeim HA, Sanchez E, Cohen BH, Hough S (1988) Perceiver bias in the 37
processing of human faces: Neuropsychological mechanisms. Cortex 24:91-117 38
39
Grossmann T, Johnson MH (2007) The development of the social brain in infancy. Eur J 40
Neurosci 25:909-919 41
42
Guo K, Benson PJ (1998) Involuntary eye movements in response to first- and second-43
order motion. Neuroreport 9:3543-3548 44
45
Guo K, Robertson RG, Mahmoodi S, Tadmor Y, Young MP (2003) How do monkeys view 46
faces? – A study of eye movements. Exp Brain Res 150:363-374 47
48
Guo K, Mahmoodi S, Robertson RG, Young MP (2006) Longer fixation duration while 49
viewing face images. Exp Brain Res 171:91-98 50

22
1
Guo K (2007) Initial fixation placement in face images is driven by top-down guidance. 2
Exp Brain Res 181:673-677 3
4
Hamilton CR, Vermeire BA (1988) Complementary hemispheric-specialization in 5
monkeys. Science 242:1691-1694 6
7
HTHare B, THHTBrown M,TH HTWilliamson C,TH HTTomasello M (2002)TH The domestication of social 8
cognition in dogs. Science 298: 1634-1636 9
10
Hare B, Tomasello M (2005) Human-like social skills in dogs. Trends Cogn Sci 9:439-444 11
12
Hauser MD (1993) Right hemisphere dominance for the production for the production of 13
facial expression in monkeys. Science 261:475-477 14
15
Heath RL, Rouhana A, Ghanem DA (2005) Asymmetric bias in perception of facial affect 16
among Roman and Arabic script readers. Laterality 10:51-64 17
18
Indersmitten T, Gur RC (2003) Emotion processing in chimeric faces: hemispheric 19
asymmetries in expression and recognition of emotions. J Neurosci 23:3820-3825 20
21
Kendrick KM (2006) Brain asymmetries for face recognition and emotion control in sheep. 22
Cortex 42:96-98 23
24
TKilleenTT TTPRT (T2005T) TAn alternative to null-hypothesis significance testsT. TPsychol Sci TT16:TT345T–25
T353 26
27
Leonards U, Scott-Samuel NE (2005) Idiosyncratic initiation of saccadic face exploration 28
in humans. Vision Res 45:2677-2684 29
30
Leslie KR, Johnson-Frey SH, Grafton ST (2004) Functional imaging of the face and hand 31
imitation: towards a motor theory of empathy. Neuroimage 21:601-607 32
33
McKone E, Kanwisher N, Duchaine BC (2006) Can generic expertise explain special 34
processing for faces? Trends Cogn Sci 11:8-15 35
36
Mendelson MJ, Haith MM, Goldman-Rakic PS (1982) Face scanning and responsiveness 37
to social cues in infant rhesus monkeys. Dev Psychol 18:222–228 38
39
Meints K, Plunkett K, Harris PL (1999) When does an ostrich become a bird? The role of 40
typicality in early word comprehension. Dev Psychol 35:1072-1078 41
42
Mertens I, Siegmund H, Grusser OJ (1993) Gaze motor asymmetries in the perception of 43
faces during a memory task. Neuropsychologia 31:989-998 44
45
Miklósi A, Kubinyi E, Topál J, Gácsi M, Virányi Z, Csányi V (2003) TA simple reason for a 46
big difference: Wolves do not look back at humans,T but dTogsT do. Curr Biol 13:763-766 47
48
Mondloch CJ, Maurer D, Ahola S (2006) Becoming a face expert. Psychol Sci 17:930-934 49
50

23
Morris RD, Hopkins WD (1993) Perception of human chimeric faces by chimpanzees: 1
evidence for a right hemisphere advantage. Brain Cognit 21:111-122 2
3
Nicholls MER, Roberts GR (2002) Can free-viewing perceptual asymmetries be explained 4
by scanning, pre-motor or attentional biases? Cortex 38:113-136 5
6
Niemeier M, Stojanoski B, Greco A (2007) Influence of time and spatial frequency on the 7
perceptual bias: evidence for competition between hemispheres. Neuropsychologia 8
45:1029-1040 9
10
Parr LA, Winslow JT, Hopkins WD (2000) Recognizing facial cues: individual 11
discrimination by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). J 12
Comp Psychol 114:1–14 13
14
Pascalis O, Demont E, de Haan M, Campbell R (2001) Recognition of faces of different 15
species: a developmental study between 5 and 8 years of age. Infant Child Dev10:39-45 16
17
Pascalis O, de Haan M, Nelson CA (2002) Is face processing species-specific during the 18
first year of life? Science 14:199-209 19
20
Philips ML, David AS (1997) Viewing strategies for simple and chimeric faces: An 21
investigation of perceptual bias in normal and schizophrenic patients using visual scan 22
paths. Brain Cognit 32:225-238 23
24
HTPoyser FTH, HTCaldwell CTH, HTCobb MTH (2006) Dog paw preference shows liability and sex 25
differences.T HTBehav ProcessesTTTH 73:216-221T 26
27
Quaranta A, Siniscalchi M, Frate A, Vallortigara G (2004) Paw preference in dogs: 28
relations between lateralised behaviour and immunity. Behav Brain Res 153:521-525 29
30
Quaranta A, Siniscalchi M, Frate A, Iacoviello R, Buonavoglia C, Vallortigara G (2006) 31
Lateralised behaviour and immune response in dogs: Relations between paw preference 32
and interferon-γ, interleukin-10 and IgG antibodies production. Behav Brain Res 166:236-33
240 34
35
Quaranta A, Siniscalchi M, Vallortigara G (2007) Asymmetric tail-wagging responses by 36
dogs to different emotive stimuli. Curr Bio 17:R199-R201 37
38
Quaranta A, Siniscalchi M, Albrizio M, Volpe S, Buonavoglia C, Vallortigara G (2008) 39
Influence of behavioural lateralization on interleukin-2 and interleukin-6 gene expression 40
in dogs before and after immunization with rabies vaccine. Behav Brain Res 186:256-260 41
42
Rhodes G (1986) Perceptual asymmetries in face recognition. Brain Cognit 4:197-218 43
44
Rosenfeld SA, Van Hoesen GW (1979) Face recognition in the rhesus monkey. 45
Neuropsychologia 17:503–509 46
47
Rossion B, Gauthier I (2002) How does the brain process upright and inverted faces? 48
Behav Cognit Neurosci Rev 1:63-75 49
50

24
Rossion B, Joyce CA, Cottrell GW, Tarr MJ (2003) Early lateralization and orientation 1
tuning for face, word, and object processing in the visual cortex. NeuroImage 20:1609-2
1624 3
4
Sovrano VA, Rainoldi C, Bisazza A, Vallortigara G (1999) Roots of brain specializations: 5
preferential left-eye use during mirror-image inspection in six species of teleost fish. Behav 6
Brain Res 106:175-180 7
8
Tan U (1987) Paw preferences in dogs. Int J Neurosci 32:825-829 9
10
Tan U, Calsikan S (1987) Allometry and asymmetry in the dog brain: the right hemisphere 11
is heavier regardless of paw preference. Int J Neurosci 35:189-194 12
13
Tanaka J, Kiefer M, Bukach CM (2004) A holistic account of the own-race effect in face 14
recognition: evidence from a cross-cultural study. Cognition 93:1-9 15
16
Tarr MJ, Cheng YD (2003) Learning to see faces and objects. Trends Cogn Sci 7:23-30 17
Topál J, Gácsi M, Miklósi Á, Virányi Z, Kubinyi E, Csányi V (2005) Attachment to 18
humans: a comparative study on hand-reared wolves and differently socialized dog 19
puppies. Anim Behav 70:1367-1375 20
Vaid J, Singh M (1989) Asymmetries in the perception of facial affect: Is there an 21
influence of reading habits? Neuropsychologia 27:1277-1287 22
23
Valentine T (1988) Upside-down faces: a review of the effects of inversion upon face 24
recognition. Br J Psychol 79: 471-491 25
26
Vallortigara G (1992) Right hemisphere advantage for social recognition in the chick. 27
Neuropsychologia 30:761-768 28
29
Vallortigara G, Andrew RJ (1991) Lateralization of response by chicks to change in a 30
model partner. Anim Behav 41:187-194 31
32
Vallortigara G, Andrew RJ (1994) Differential involvement of right and left hemisphere in 33
individual recognition in the domestic chick. Behav Processes 33:41-58 34
35
Vallortigara G, Rogers LJ (2005) Survival with an asymmetrical brain: Advantages and 36
disadvantages of cerebral lateralization. Behav Brain Sci 28: 575-589 37
38
Vermeire BA, Hamilton CR (1998) Inversion effect for faces in split-brain monkeys. 39
NTeuropsychologia TT36T:1003–1014 40
41
Vilà C, Savolainen P, Maldonado JE, Amorim IR, Rice JE, Honeycutt RL, Crandall KA, 42
Lundeberg J, Wayne RK (1997) Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog. Science 43
276:1687–1689 44
45
VirányiP
PZ, Gácsi M, Kubinyi E, Topál J, Belényi B, Ujfalussy D, Miklósi A (2008) 46
Comprehension of human pointing gestures in young human-reared wolves (Canis lupus) 47
and dogs (Canis familiaris). Anim Cogn 11:373-387 48

25
1
Wells DL (2003) Lateralised behaviour in the domestic dog, Canis familiaris. Behav 2
Processes T61T:T27-35T 3
4
Yovel G, Kanwisher N (2005) The neural basis of the behavioral face-inversion effect. 5
Curr Biol 15:2256-2262 6
7
Zucca P, Sovrano VA (2008) Animal lateralization and social recognition: Quails use their 8
left visual hemifield when approaching a companion and their right visual hemifield when 9
approaching a stranger. Cortex 44:13-20 10
11
12 Legends 13
Figure 1: (A) and (C), the probability of initial fixation directed at left and right side of 14
presented images for 6-month-old human infants and adults. (B) and (D), the averaged 15
proportion of viewing time within a trial on the left and right side of presented images for 16
human infants and adults. Error bars indicate standard error of mean (* p<0.05, ** p<0.01). 17
18
19
Figure 2: (A) and (C), the probability of initial fixation directed at left and right side of 20
presented images for monkeys and dogs. (B) and (D), the averaged proportion of viewing 21
time within a trial on the left and right side of presented images for monkeys and dogs. 22
Error bars indicate standard error of mean (* p<0.05, ** p<0.01). 23
24

26
Table 1 1
2
3
4
5
6 Table 1 Cumulative image viewing time as percentage of total trial time (%). Values 7
presented in the table are mean±SEM. 8
9
Human infants Human adults Monkeys Dogs
Upright human face 68.71±2.88 97.99±0.74 51.08±2.80 47.19±2.75
Inverted human face 68.24±3.15 96.18±1.16 43.87±3.53 47.35±2.18
Upright monkey face 66.34±3.30 97.20±0.97 51.50±2.28 46.26±3.18
Inverted monkey face 63.87±3.32 96.52±0.85 44.19±3.25 45.18±2.80
Upright dog face 43.68±1.84
Inverted dog face 43.02±2.94
Object images 65.10±2.28 97.69±0.86 43.55±1.54
10

27
1
Figure 1 2
3
4
Human infants
0
25
50
75
100
Probability of
first fixation (%)
A
****
Human adults
0
25
50
75
100
Probability of
first fixation (%)
C
** * ** **
5
0
25
50
75
100
Proportion of total
viewing time (%)
left hem iface right hemiface
B
*****
0
25
50
75
100
Proportion of total
viewing time (%)
left hem iface right hemiface
D
*
6 7
8

28
Figure 2 1
2
3
4
5
6
Monkeys
0
25
50
75
100
Probability of
first fixation (%)
A
***
Dogs
0
25
50
75
100
Probability of
first fixation (%)
C
** **
7
0
25
50
75
100
Proportion of total
viewing time (%)
left hem iface
right hemiface
B
****
0
25
50
75
100
Proportion of total
viewing time (%)
left hem iface right hemiface
D
**
8 9