Detecting and reacting to potential threats in the environment is an essential skill for survival. Emotional information that indicates threat in the environment, such as a fearful or angry face, confers perceptual and attentional advantages compared to neutral information (Carretié, 2014; Pourtois et al., 2013; Vuilleumier, 2005): Emotional information enhances visual sensitivity (Phelps et al., 2006; Fox et al., 2000), potentiates effects of attention on visual sensitivity (Ferneyhough et al., 2013; Bocanegra and Zeelenberg, 2009; Bocanegra and Zeelenberg, 2011a; Bocanegra and Zeelenberg, 2011b; Ohman et al., 2001; Lundqvist and Ohman, 2005) and on appearance (Barbot and Carrasco, 2018), and gains preferential access to awareness (Amting et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2007; Milders et al., 2006; Hedger et al., 2015). The advantages of emotional information extend to actions. Eye (Bannerman et al., 2009a; Bannerman et al., 2009b; Bannerman et al., 2010; Nummenmaa et al., 2009) - or pointing (Valk et al., 2015) movements towards emotional –especially threat-related stimuli– are facilitated, whereas saccades away from these are delayed (Belopolsky et al., 2011; Kissler and Keil, 2008). Further, emotional information influences gaze trajectories, that is directly guides eye movements. Usually, people’s eyes are attracted more towards emotional than neutral faces (Mogg et al., 2007; Kret et al., 2013a; Kret et al., 2013b), yet, sometimes gaze is repelled from threat-related –angry or fearful– faces (Hunnius et al., 2011; Becker and Detweiler-Bedell, 2009; Schmidt et al., 2012).

Remarkably, the recognition of a face’s emotional expression does not require awareness of the face. (Some authors refer to ‘awareness’ and ‘consciousness’ interchangeably; in line with a recent review on the dissociations of perception and eye movements for neutral stimuli (Spering and Carrasco, 2015), we use the term awareness and operationally define it as the ability to make an explicit perceptual report). Cortically blind individuals are able to correctly ‘guess’ the emotions of faces they cannot see (de Gelder et al., 2005; de Gelder et al., 1999; Pegna et al., 2005; Tamietto et al., 2009; Bertini et al., 2013; Striemer et al., 2017). In neurologically intact observers, emotional — especially threat-related — information they remain entirely unaware of, is prioritized over neutral information (Hedger et al., 2016), facilitates visual discrimination (Bertini et al., 2017), and alters subsequent perceptual (Almeida et al., 2013) and discrimination judgments differentially for the unseen emotion (Zhan and de Gelder, 2018). Emotional stimuli observers are unaware of also elicit physiological reactions, for example changes in skin conductance (Esteves et al., 1994), facial muscle activity and pupil dilation (Tamietto et al., 2009), and activate subcortical structures, for example the amygdala, pulvinar, basal ganglia and superior colliculus (Tamietto and de Gelder, 2010; Jiang and He, 2006; Troiani et al., 2014; Troiani and Schultz, 2013), as well as cortical structures (Pessoa and Adolphs, 2010). Furthermore, suppressed emotional stimuli influence oculomotor response times; when observers saccade towards color patches to report a mask’s color, saccades initiation is slower departing from masked angry faces than from masked happy faces (Terburg et al., 2012). Despite this evidence indicating perceptual and attentional advantages, it is unknown whether suppressed emotional information can also directly guide actions or whether we have to become aware of the threat before we can act upon it.

Eye movements are the ideal testing ground for the relation between suppressed emotional information and actions, as recent evidence has shown that eye movements and visual awareness for neutral stimuli can be dissociated (Spering and Carrasco, 2015). Whether and how oculomotor actions are guided by unaware emotional information can be investigated by suppressing stimuli from awareness while measuring eye movements. The dissociation of eye movements and visual awareness reflects situations in which the direction of eye movements change in response to particular visual features, such as orientation or motion direction, even though observers are unable to report these features because they are not aware of them (Spering and Carrasco, 2015; Spering and Carrasco, 2012; Spering et al., 2011; Rothkirch et al., 2012; Glasser and Tadin, 2014; Kuhn and Land, 2006; Simoncini et al., 2012; Tavassoli and Ringach, 2010). In other words, suppressed neutral stimuli determine the trajectory of eye movements in the absence of awareness. Moreover, visual attention can modulate the processing of neutral stimuli and the eye movements they elicit even when observers are unaware of them (Spering and Carrasco, 2012).

Angry and fearful faces convey different types of threat, and elicit different reactions under awareness. Fearful faces indicate a potential indirect threat in the environment of the fearful person without indicating the source of the threat, suggesting more information is needed to appraise the situation (Davis et al., 2011). This ambiguity leads to increased amygdala activation (Whalen et al., 2013), heightens visual attention to the seen fearful stimulus location (Phelps et al., 2006; Ferneyhough et al., 2013) and attracts eye movements that enable detailed processing of the face and its environment (Mogg et al., 2007). Angry faces indicate direct threats (a person with an angry expression looking directly at the observer) leading to avoidance (Schmidt et al., 2012; Marsh et al., 2005) or freezing (Roelofs et al., 2010) responses. When looking at angry faces observers show a stronger startle reflex (Springer et al., 2007), stronger activation of the torso muscles (Huis In 't Veld et al., 2014), widening of the pupils (Kret et al., 2013b), and higher activation in brain areas associated with defense preparation (Williams et al., 2005; Pichon et al., 2009; Kret et al., 2011) than when looking at fearful faces. Threat processing is considered to evolve along two distinctive neuronal pathways, a fast sub-cortical and a slower cortical route (LeDoux, 1998). There is some evidence that fear information, relative to anger information, may be preferentially processed along the fast, subcortical route (Luo et al., 2007). This rich body of research suggests differential processing of fear and anger under awareness. Yet, when observers are presented with unmasked angry and fearful faces, both attract (Mogg et al., 2007; Kret et al., 2013a) or repel (Hunnius et al., 2011; Becker and Detweiler-Bedell, 2009) their attention and eye gaze equally strongly. Of note, there is only circumstantial evidence for distinct effects of emotional faces in the absence of awareness: Fearful faces have preferential access to awareness (Yang et al., 2007; Milders et al., 2006; Troiani et al., 2014; Jusyte et al., 2015), whereas angry faces remain suppressed longer (Jusyte et al., 2015; Zhan et al., 2015), both compared to neutral faces presented during continuous-flash suppression (CFS).

Our study had two goals: (1) To test whether threat-related emotional stimuli can guide eye movements in the absence of visual awareness. Were suppressed emotional faces to guide eye movements, their trajectory would depend on the location of the emotional stimuli. (2) To test whether these oculomotor actions in the absence of awareness are distinct for different threat-related facial emotions. Were threat-related emotional information to guide eye-movements, the trajectories could be similar or differential, that is depend on the nature of the threat, direct — angry faces — or indirect — fearful faces.

We investigated these critical open questions by assessing whether different threat-related stimuli can direct oculomotor actions in the absence of awareness, as indicated by objective and subjective measures, and whether those actions are similar or differential by contrasting eye movements elicited by angry faces and fearful faces.

We rendered emotional faces unaware using continuous flash suppression (Tsuchiya and Koch, 2005; Fang and He, 2005). Low contrast face stimuli located in one of four quadrants of the visual display were presented to the non-dominant eye and a high contrast flickering mask was presented to the dominant eye (Figure 1). As such, the viewer is only aware of the flickering mask, but not of the stimulus presented to the non-dominant eye. In this way, continuous flash suppression suppresses stimuli for up to several seconds, enabling the measurement of eye movements in the absence of awareness (Rothkirch et al., 2012; Madipakkam et al., 2016).

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

To investigate the extent to which the different emotional facial expressions are processed and whether they affect eye movements differentially, we used two negative-valence expressions, fearful faces, indicating an indirect threat in the environment, and angry faces, indicating a direct threat from the depicted person. We also used neutral faces to control for the effects of face stimuli on eye movements that are unrelated to threat. To rule out the possibility that eye movements could have been simply triggered by low-level visual features (e.g., contrast differences between the eye and mouth regions), we also presented the same stimulus set upside down, as done in previous studies (Phelps et al., 2006; Bocanegra and Zeelenberg, 2009; Barbot and Carrasco, 2018) (Figure 1).

We determined full suppression of visual awareness based on subjective visibility ratings, whose validity we verified for each observer using objective measures. This verification is essential as subjective measures alone could reflect criterion rather than discriminability differences (Hedger et al., 2016; Sterzer et al., 2014). After each trial, participants (a) judged the location and emotional expression of the face stimulus and (b) rated its visibility (Figure 2). We analyzed only those trials in which subjective visibility was zero, and only data from participants’ whose objective performance across trials with subjective zero visibility was at chance level for each of the two tasks, location and emotional expression, matching their subjective impression.

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Despite face stimuli being fully suppressed from awareness, participants moved their eyes towards fearful faces and away from angry faces, compared to neutral faces. Figure 3 shows gaze position relative to the face stimulus as a function of time. Most locations within the display were further away from the face than the fixation point. Thus, the distance between gaze position and face increased for all faces when participants moved their eyes after an initial mandatory fixation period. At ~400 ms after full display was reached, distance of gaze position to fearful faces decreased compared to neutral faces, indicating an orienting of gaze towards fearful faces. In contrast, distance of gaze position to angry faces increased compared to the distance to neutral faces, indicating gaze aversion from angry faces. This pattern of results was not observed with upside-down presented faces. The absence of an effect for upside-down presented faces rules out the possibility that low-level visual features were responsible for the effect observed with upright presented emotional faces, a confound not controlled for in previous studies (Bodenschatz et al., 2018) (Figure 3).

Figure 3 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

To determine the preferentially viewed location for each emotion, we contrasted the spatial distribution of dwell times for upright faces with their upside-down counterparts; the latter provided a suitable baseline as they evoked no emotion-specific eye movements (Figure 3). This dwell time analysis (Figure 4) showed that, observers looked significantly longer towards the location at which an upright fearful face was displayed: dwell times at the target location increased by 57% compared to trials with upside-down presented fearful faces. In contrast, observers looked significantly longer towards an adjacent location when an upright compared to an upside-down angry face was displayed, demonstrating a consistent and lasting gaze aversion from an angry face. No effect emerged for neutral faces.

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

We found that in the absence of visual awareness, observers’ eye movements were attracted towards fearful faces and repelled away from angry faces, compared to neutral faces. These novel results revealed that threat-related emotional faces can guide oculomotor actions without entering awareness. Our objective performance measures (Figure 2, red dots) validate the subjective visibility ratings, and together indicate that the emotional faces were suppressed from perceptual awareness. The absence of an effect with upside-down presented angry faces precludes confounds with low-level feature differences between faces of different emotional expressions.

Remarkably, the elicited eye movements were specific to the displayed facial emotion regarding the type of threat it conveyed. These distinct consequences on oculomotor actions demonstrate qualitative processing of the emotional expression, rather than mere detection of emotional stimuli in the absence of awareness. Previous studies on emotional face perception predominantly demonstrated preferential emergence of fearful faces into awareness (Hedger et al., 2016), which could simply indicate unspecific arousal caused by emotional content.

How can emotional stimuli directly guide oculomotor actions in the absence of awareness? For neutral stimuli, dissociations between visual awareness and eye movements, revealing more sensitive processing of information, have been related to the involvement of a fast subcortical retinocollicular pathway (Spering and Carrasco, 2015). Furthermore, processing of unaware emotional visual information has been associated with a subcortical pathway involving the amygdala, pulvinar, and superior colliculus (Tamietto and de Gelder, 2010), as well as structural connections between the amygdala and cortical motor‐related areas (Grèzes et al., 2014). The superior colliculus plays a crucial role in the control of voluntary and involuntary eye movements (Bell and Munoz, 2008). Thus, in the absence of awareness, orienting of eye movements towards and away from emotional faces could be mediated by these subcortical structures, in addition to the potential involvement of a cortical pathway (Pessoa and Adolphs, 2010). A possible mechanism could be that the amygdala assesses facial emotional expression, and the superior colliculus guides eye movements according to a fight, flight, or freeze response.

Why did participants look towards fearful faces, but avert their gaze away from angry faces, in the absence of awareness? As mentioned in the Introduction, under awareness these two threat-related emotions have differential perceptual consequences (Kret et al., 2013b; Marsh et al., 2005; Springer et al., 2007; Huis In 't Veld et al., 2014) and may be mediated by different neural pathways (Luo et al., 2007). In the absence of awareness, before this study, there had been only circumstantial evidence for differential processing of angry and fearful faces according to the time they take to break into awareness (Yang et al., 2007; Milders et al., 2006; Troiani et al., 2014; Jusyte et al., 2015; Zhan et al., 2015). With respect to eye movements, under awareness, both angry and fearful faces have shown to elicit similar eye movement responses, either attraction (Mogg et al., 2007; Kret et al., 2013a) or repulsion (Hunnius et al., 2011; Becker and Detweiler-Bedell, 2009). In the absence of awareness, gaze avoidance from masked angry faces had been demonstrated only indirectly with eyes starting instructed movements towards a response target more slowly in the presence of an angry than a happy face (Terburg et al., 2011). Instead, our results, directly measured with eye tracking, show uninstructed, sustained gaze avoidance to an angry face but sustained gaze attraction to a fearful face, while the faces are entirely suppressed from awareness. Fearful faces are more ambiguous and directing our eyes towards them may be an automatic response to try to gather more information (Bannerman et al., 2009a; Mogg et al., 2007; Davis et al., 2011). In contrast, angry faces pose a direct threat and directing our eyes away from them may be an automatic avoidance response (Davis et al., 2011).

Comparing our finding of differential eye movements in the absence of awareness with the previous findings of similar eye movements under awareness (Mogg et al., 2007; Kret et al., 2013a; Hunnius et al., 2011; Becker and Detweiler-Bedell, 2009) suggest that different factors may influence eye movements under aware and unaware conditions. Across studies, perceptual (Lapate et al., 2016), attentional (Mogg et al., 1994; Fox, 1996) and physiological (Tamietto et al., 2015) effects of emotional information either differ qualitatively or tend to be stronger in the absence than in the presence of awareness (Diano et al., 2017). Moreover, awareness modulates the time course (Liddell et al., 2004) and locus (Tamietto et al., 2015) of neural activations elicited by threat-related information, as well as functional connectivity between the amygdala and pre-frontal areas (Amting et al., 2010; Lapate et al., 2016; Williams et al., 2006). Two different mechanisms might cause threat-related emotions guiding actions differentially in the absence, but not in the presence of awareness: a) the perceived intensity of the threat might be stronger in the absence of awareness (Lapate et al., 2016; Liddell et al., 2004), which in turn may facilitate actions specifically tailored towards the nature of the threat, indirect or direct; b) cognitive mechanisms might suppress automatic actions upon threat-related information only under awareness (Whalen et al., 2013; Mogg et al., 1994), but not in its absence, as in our present findings. Several factors may help overwrite automatic eye movements towards fearful or away from angry faces, ranging from mere adherence to the task instructions (Becker and Detweiler-Bedell, 2009) to regulation of the social communication entailed in holding or averting gaze (Terburg et al., 2011; Emery, 2000; Kendon, 1967).

To conclude, our results provide the first evidence that emotional information humans are unaware of can differentially modulate their eye movements without entering awareness.

Source data and all analyses are available on Github (https://github.com/StephBadde/EyeMovementsSuppressedEmotionalFaces; copy archived at https://github.com/elifesciences-publications/EyeMovementsSuppressedEmotionalFaces).

1. 1. Almeida J
   2. Pajtas PE
   3. Mahon BZ
   4. Nakayama K
   5. Caramazza A

   (2013) Affect of the unconscious: visually suppressed angry faces modulate our decisions. cognitive, affective, &

   Behavioral Neuroscience 13:94–101.

   https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-012-0133-7

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Amting JM
   2. Greening SG
   3. Mitchell DG

   (2010) Multiple mechanisms of consciousness: the neural correlates of emotional awareness

   Journal of Neuroscience 30:10039–10047.

   https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6434-09.2010

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Bannerman RL
   2. Milders M
   3. de Gelder B
   4. Sahraie A

   (2009a) Orienting to threat: faster localization of fearful facial expressions and body postures revealed by saccadic eye movements

   Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276:1635–1641.

   https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1744

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Bannerman RL
   2. Milders M
   3. Sahraie A

   (2009b) Processing emotional stimuli: comparison of saccadic and manual choice-reaction times

   Cognition & Emotion 23:930–954.

   https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930802243303

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Bannerman RL
   2. Milders M
   3. Sahraie A

   (2010) Attentional bias to brief threat-related faces revealed by saccadic eye movements

   Emotion 10:733–738.

   https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019354

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Barbot A
   2. Carrasco M

   (2018) Emotion and anxiety potentiate the way attention alters visual appearance

   Scientific Reports 8:e5938.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23686-8

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Becker MW
   2. Detweiler-Bedell B

   (2009) Short article: early detection and avoidance of threatening faces during passive viewing

   Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62:1257–1264.

   https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902725753

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bell AH
   2. Munoz DP

   (2008) Activity in the superior colliculus reflects dynamic interactions between voluntary and involuntary influences on orienting behaviour

   European Journal of Neuroscience 28:1654–1660.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06393.x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Belopolsky AV
   2. Devue C
   3. Theeuwes J

   (2011) Angry faces hold the eyes

   Visual Cognition 19:27–36.

   https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2010.536186

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Bertini C
    2. Cecere R
    3. Làdavas E

    (2013) I am blind, but I "see" fear

    Cortex 49:985–993.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2012.02.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Bertini C
    2. Cecere R
    3. Làdavas E

    (2017)

    Neuropsychologia

    Unseen fearful faces facilitate visual discrimination in the intact field, Neuropsychologia, Elsevier.

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Bocanegra BR
    2. Zeelenberg R

    (2009) Emotion improves and impairs early vision

    Psychological Science 20:707–713.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02354.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Bocanegra BR
    2. Zeelenberg R

    (2011a) Emotion-induced trade-offs in spatiotemporal vision

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 140:272–282.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023188

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Bocanegra BR
    2. Zeelenberg R

    (2011b) Emotional cues enhance the attentional effects on spatial and temporal resolution

    Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 18:1071–1076.

    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0156-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Bodenschatz CM
    2. Kersting A
    3. Suslow T

    (2018) Effects of briefly presented masked emotional facial expressions on gaze behavior: an Eye-Tracking study

    Psychological Reports 35:003329411878904.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118789041

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Calvo MG
    2. Nummenmaa L

    (2008) Detection of emotional faces: salient physical features guide effective visual search

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 137:471–494.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012771

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Carretié L

    (2014) Exogenous (automatic) attention to emotional stimuli: a review

    Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 14:1228–1258.

    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-014-0270-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Davis FC
    2. Somerville LH
    3. Ruberry EJ
    4. Berry AB
    5. Shin LM
    6. Whalen PJ

    (2011) A tale of two negatives: differential memory modulation by threat-related facial expressions

    Emotion 11:647–655.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021625

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. de Gelder B
    2. Vroomen J
    3. Pourtois G
    4. Weiskrantz L

    (1999) Non-conscious recognition of affect in the absence of striate cortex

    NeuroReport 10:3759–3763.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-199912160-00007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. de Gelder B
    2. Morris JS
    3. Dolan RJ

    (2005) Unconscious fear influences emotional awareness of faces and voices

    PNAS 102:18682–18687.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0509179102

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Derntl B
    2. Seidel EM
    3. Kainz E
    4. Carbon CC

    (2009) Recognition of emotional expressions is affected by inversion and presentation time

    Perception 38:1849–1862.

    https://doi.org/10.1068/p6448

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Diano M
    2. Celeghin A
    3. Bagnis A
    4. Tamietto M

    (2017) Amygdala response to emotional stimuli without awareness: facts and interpretations

    Frontiers in Psychology 7:1–12.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02029

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Emery NJ

    (2000) The eyes have it: the neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze

    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 24:581–604.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7634(00)00025-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Esteves F
    2. Parra C
    3. Dimberg U
    4. Ohman A

    (1994) Nonconscious associative learning: pavlovian conditioning of skin conductance responses to masked fear-relevant facial stimuli

    Psychophysiology 31:375–385.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1994.tb02446.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Fang F
    2. He S

    (2005) Cortical responses to invisible objects in the human dorsal and ventral pathways

    Nature Neuroscience 8:1380–1385.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1537

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Ferneyhough E
    2. Kim MK
    3. Phelps EA
    4. Carrasco M

    (2013) Anxiety modulates the effects of emotion and attention on early vision

    Cognition & Emotion 27:166–176.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2012.689953

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Fox E

    (1996) Selective processing of threatening words in anxiety: the role of awareness

    Cognition & Emotion 10:449–480.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/026999396380114

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Fox E
    2. Lester V
    3. Russo R
    4. Bowles RJ
    5. Pichler A
    6. Dutton K

    (2000) Facial expressions of emotion: are angry faces detected more efficiently?

    Cognition & Emotion 14:61–92.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300378996

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Glasser DM
    2. Tadin D

    (2014) Modularity in the motion system: independent oculomotor and perceptual processing of brief moving stimuli

    Journal of Vision 14:28.

    https://doi.org/10.1167/14.3.28

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Grèzes J
    2. Valabrègue R
    3. Gholipour B
    4. Chevallier C

    (2014) A direct amygdala-motor pathway for emotional displays to influence action: a diffusion tensor imaging study

    Human Brain Mapping 35:5974–5983.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22598

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Hedger N
    2. Adams WJ
    3. Garner M

    (2015) Fearful faces have a sensory advantage in the competition for awareness

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 41:1748–1757.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000127

    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Hedger N
    2. Gray KL
    3. Garner M
    4. Adams WJ

    (2016) Are visual threats prioritized without awareness? A critical review and meta-analysis involving 3 behavioral paradigms and 2696 observers

    Psychological Bulletin 142:934–968.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000054

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Hesselmann G
    2. Darcy N
    3. Ludwig K
    4. Sterzer P

    (2016) Priming in a shape task but not in a category task under continuous flash suppression

    Journal of Vision 16:17.

    https://doi.org/10.1167/16.3.17

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Huis In 't Veld EM
    2. van Boxtel GJ
    3. de Gelder B

    (2014) The body action coding system II: muscle activations during the perception and expression of emotion

    Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 8:1–13.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00330

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Hunnius S
    2. de Wit TC
    3. Vrins S
    4. von Hofsten C

    (2011) Facing threat: infants' and adults' visual scanning of faces with neutral, happy, sad, angry, and fearful emotional expressions

    Cognition & Emotion 25:193–205.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/15298861003771189

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Jiang Y
    2. He S

    (2006) Cortical responses to invisible faces: dissociating subsystems for facial-information processing

    Current Biology 16:2023–2029.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.08.084

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Jusyte A
    2. Mayer SV
    3. Künzel E
    4. Hautzinger M
    5. Schönenberg M

    (2015) Unemotional traits predict early processing deficit for fearful expressions in young violent offenders: an investigation using continuous flash suppression

    Psychological Medicine 45:285–297.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291714001287

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Kaunitz LN
    2. Fracasso A
    3. Skujevskis M
    4. Melcher D

    (2014) Waves of visibility: probing the depth of inter-ocular suppression with transient and sustained targets

    Frontiers in Psychology 5:804.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00804

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Kendon A

    (1967) Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction

    Acta Psychologica 26:22–63.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(67)90005-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Kissler J
    2. Keil A

    (2008) Look-don't look! how emotional pictures affect pro- and anti-saccades

    Experimental Brain Research 188:215–222.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-008-1358-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Kret ME
    2. Pichon S
    3. Grèzes J
    4. de Gelder B

    (2011) Similarities and differences in perceiving threat from dynamic faces and bodies. an fMRI study

    NeuroImage 54:1755–1762.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Kret ME
    2. Stekelenburg JJ
    3. Roelofs K
    4. de Gelder B

    (2013a) Perception of face and body expressions using electromyography, pupillometry and gaze measures

    Frontiers in Psychology 4:1–12.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00028

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Kret ME
    2. Roelofs K
    3. Stekelenburg JJ
    4. de Gelder B

    (2013b) Emotional signals from faces, bodies and scenes influence observers' face expressions, fixations and pupil-size

    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7:1–9.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00810

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Kuhn G
    2. Land MF

    (2006) There's more to magic than meets the eye

    Current Biology 16:R950–R951.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.10.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Lapate RC
    2. Rokers B
    3. Tromp DP
    4. Orfali NS
    5. Oler JA
    6. Doran ST
    7. Adluru N
    8. Alexander AL
    9. Davidson RJ

    (2016) Awareness of emotional stimuli determines the behavioral consequences of amygdala activation and Amygdala-Prefrontal connectivity

    Scientific Reports 6:1–16.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25826

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. LeDoux J

    (1998)

    The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life

    The emotional brain, The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life, Simon and Schuster.

    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Liddell BJ
    2. Williams LM
    3. Rathjen J
    4. Shevrin H
    5. Gordon E

    (2004) A temporal dissociation of subliminal versus supraliminal fear perception: an event-related potential study

    Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16:479–486.

    https://doi.org/10.1162/089892904322926809

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. Book

    1. Lundqvist D
    2. Flykt A
    3. Öhman A

    (1998)

    The Karolinska Directed Emotional Faces – KDEF, CD ROM from Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Psychology Section, Karolinska Institutet

    Karolinska Institutet. ISBN 978-91-630-7164-5.

    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Lundqvist D
    2. Ohman A

    (2005) Emotion regulates attention: the relation between facial configurations, facial emotion, and visual attention

    Visual Cognition 12:51–84.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280444000085

    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Luo Q
    2. Holroyd T
    3. Jones M
    4. Hendler T
    5. Blair J

    (2007) Neural dynamics for facial threat processing as revealed by gamma band synchronization using MEG

    NeuroImage 34:839–847.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.09.023

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Madipakkam AR
    2. Rothkirch M
    3. Wilbertz G
    4. Sterzer P

    (2016) Probing the influence of unconscious fear-conditioned visual stimuli on eye movements

    Consciousness and Cognition 46:60–70.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.09.016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Maris E
    2. Oostenveld R

    (2007) Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data

    Journal of Neuroscience Methods 164:177–190.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.03.024

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Marsh AA
    2. Ambady N
    3. Kleck RE

    (2005) The effects of fear and anger facial expressions on approach- and avoidance-related behaviors

    Emotion 5:119–124.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.119

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. McKelvie SJ

    (1995) Emotional expression in upside-down faces: evidence for configurational and componential processing

    British Journal of Social Psychology 34:325–334.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1995.tb01067.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Milders M
    2. Sahraie A
    3. Logan S
    4. Donnellon N

    (2006) Awareness of faces is modulated by their emotional meaning

    Emotion 6:10–17.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.1.10

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Miles WR

    (1930) Ocular dominance in human adults

    The Journal of General Psychology 3:412–430.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1930.9918218

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Mogg K
    2. Bradley BP
    3. Hallowell N

    (1994) Attentional bias to threat: roles of trait anxiety, stressful events, and awareness

    The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A 47:841–864.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749408401099

    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Mogg K
    2. Garner M
    3. Bradley BP

    (2007) Anxiety and orienting of gaze to angry and fearful faces

    Biological Psychology 76:163–169.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.07.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Narme P
    2. Bonnet AM
    3. Dubois B
    4. Chaby L

    (2011) Understanding facial emotion perception in Parkinson's disease: the role of configural processing

    Neuropsychologia 49:3295–3302.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.08.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Nummenmaa L
    2. Hyönä J
    3. Calvo MG

    (2009) Emotional scene content drives the saccade generation system reflexively

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 35:305–323.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013626

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Ohman A
    2. Lundqvist D
    3. Esteves F

    (2001) The face in the crowd revisited: a threat advantage with schematic stimuli

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80:381–396.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.381

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Pegna AJ
    2. Khateb A
    3. Lazeyras F
    4. Seghier ML

    (2005) Discriminating emotional faces without primary visual cortices involves the right amygdala

    Nature Neuroscience 8:24–25.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1364

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Pessoa L
    2. Adolphs R

    (2010) Emotion processing and the amygdala: from a 'low road' to 'many roads' of evaluating biological significance

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11:773–782.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2920

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Phelps EA
    2. Ling S
    3. Carrasco M

    (2006) Emotion facilitates perception and potentiates the perceptual benefits of attention

    Psychological Science 17:292–299.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01701.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Pichon S
    2. de Gelder B
    3. Grèzes J

    (2009) Two different faces of threat. comparing the neural systems for recognizing fear and anger in dynamic body expressions

    NeuroImage 47:1873–1883.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.03.084

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Pourtois G
    2. Schettino A
    3. Vuilleumier P

    (2013) Brain mechanisms for emotional influences on perception and attention: what is magic and what is not

    Biological Psychology 92:492–512.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.02.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Roelofs K
    2. Hagenaars MA
    3. Stins J

    (2010) Facing freeze: social threat induces bodily freeze in humans

    Psychological Science 21:1575–1581.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610384746

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Rothkirch M
    2. Stein T
    3. Sekutowicz M
    4. Sterzer P

    (2012) A direct oculomotor correlate of unconscious visual processing

    Current Biology 22:R514–R515.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.04.046

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Sandberg K
    2. Timmermans B
    3. Overgaard M
    4. Cleeremans A

    (2010) Measuring consciousness: is one measure better than the other?

    Consciousness and Cognition 19:1069–1078.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2009.12.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Schmidt LJ
    2. Belopolsky AV
    3. Theeuwes J

    (2012) The presence of threat affects saccade trajectories

    Visual Cognition 20:284–299.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2012.658885

    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Simoncini C
    2. Perrinet LU
    3. Montagnini A
    4. Mamassian P
    5. Masson GS

    (2012) More is not always better: adaptive gain control explains dissociation between perception and action

    Nature Neuroscience 15:1596–1603.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3229

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Spering M
    2. Pomplun M
    3. Carrasco M

    (2011) Tracking without perceiving: a dissociation between eye movements and motion perception

    Psychological Science 22:216–225.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610394659

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Spering M
    2. Carrasco M

    (2012) Similar effects of feature-based attention on motion perception and pursuit eye movements at different levels of awareness

    Journal of Neuroscience 32:7594–7601.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0355-12.2012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Spering M
    2. Carrasco M

    (2015) Acting without seeing: eye movements reveal visual processing without awareness

    Trends in Neurosciences 38:247–258.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2015.02.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Springer US
    2. Rosas A
    3. McGetrick J
    4. Bowers D

    (2007) Differences in startle reactivity during the perception of angry and fearful faces

    Emotion 7:516–525.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.3.516

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Sterzer P
    2. Stein T
    3. Ludwig K
    4. Rothkirch M
    5. Hesselmann G

    (2014) Neural processing of visual information under interocular suppression: a critical review

    Frontiers in Psychology 5:453.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00453

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Striemer CL
    2. Whitwell RL
    3. Goodale MA

    (2017)

    Neuropsychologia 

    Affective blindsight in the absence of input from face processing regions in occipital-temporal cortex, Neuropsychologia , Elsevier, 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.11.014.

    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Tamietto M
    2. Castelli L
    3. Vighetti S
    4. Perozzo P
    5. Geminiani G
    6. Weiskrantz L
    7. de Gelder B

    (2009) Unseen facial and bodily expressions trigger fast emotional reactions

    PNAS 106:17661–17666.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908994106

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Tamietto M
    2. Cauda F
    3. Celeghin A
    4. Diano M
    5. Costa T
    6. Cossa FM
    7. Sacco K
    8. Duca S
    9. Geminiani GC
    10. de Gelder B

    (2015) Once you feel it, you see it: insula and sensory-motor contribution to visual awareness for fearful bodies in parietal neglect

    Cortex 62:56–72.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.10.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Tamietto M
    2. de Gelder B

    (2010) Neural bases of the non-conscious perception of emotional signals

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11:697–709.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2889

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Tavassoli A
    2. Ringach DL

    (2010) When your eyes see more than you do

    Current Biology 20:R93–R94.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.048

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Terburg D
    2. Hooiveld N
    3. Aarts H
    4. Kenemans JL
    5. van Honk J

    (2011) Eye tracking unconscious face-to-face confrontations: dominance motives prolong gaze to masked angry faces

    Psychological Science 22:314–319.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611398492

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Terburg D
    2. Aarts H
    3. van Honk J

    (2012) Testosterone affects gaze aversion from angry faces outside of conscious awareness

    Psychological Science 23:459–463.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611433336

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Troiani V
    2. Price ET
    3. Schultz RT

    (2014) Unseen fearful faces promote amygdala guidance of attention

    Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 9:133–140.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss116

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Troiani V
    2. Schultz RT

    (2013) Amygdala, pulvinar, and inferior parietal cortex contribute to early processing of faces without awareness

    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7:1–12.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00241

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Tsuchiya N
    2. Koch C
    3. Gilroy LA
    4. Blake R

    (2006) Depth of interocular suppression associated with continuous flash suppression, flash suppression, and binocular rivalry

    Journal of Vision 6:6–1078.

    https://doi.org/10.1167/6.10.6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Tsuchiya N
    2. Koch C

    (2005) Continuous flash suppression reduces negative afterimages

    Nature Neuroscience 8:1096–1101.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1500

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Valk JMd
    2. Wijnen JG
    3. Kret ME

    (2015) Anger fosters action. fast responses in a motor task involving approach movements toward angry faces and bodies

    Frontiers in Psychology 6:1–7.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01240

    • Google Scholar
89. Software

    1. Vetter P
    2. Badde S
    3. Phelps EA
    4. Carrasco M

    (2019) EyeMovementsSuppressedEmotionalFaces_Repository, version 0201f6e

    GitHub.

    https://github.com/StephBadde/EyeMovementsSuppressedEmotionalFaces
90. 1. Vuilleumier P

    (2005) How brains beware: neural mechanisms of emotional attention

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9:585–594.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.10.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Whalen PJ
    2. Raila H
    3. Bennett R
    4. Mattek A
    5. Brown A
    6. Taylor J
    7. van Tieghem M
    8. Tanner A
    9. Miner M
    10. Palmer A

    (2013) Neuroscience and facial expressions of emotion: the role of Amygdala–Prefrontal Interactions

    Emotion Review 5:78–83.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912457231

    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Willenbockel V
    2. Sadr J
    3. Fiset D
    4. Horne GO
    5. Gosselin F
    6. Tanaka JW

    (2010) Controlling low-level image properties: the SHINE toolbox

    Behavior Research Methods 42:671–684.

    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.671

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Williams LM
    2. Das P
    3. Liddell B
    4. Olivieri G
    5. Peduto A
    6. Brammer MJ
    7. Gordon E

    (2005) BOLD, sweat and fears: fmri and skin conductance distinguish facial fear signals

    NeuroReport 16:49–52.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200501190-00012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Williams LM
    2. Das P
    3. Liddell BJ
    4. Kemp AH
    5. Rennie CJ
    6. Gordon E

    (2006) Mode of functional connectivity in amygdala pathways dissociates level of awareness for signals of fear

    Journal of Neuroscience 26:9264–9271.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1016-06.2006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Yang E
    2. Zald DH
    3. Blake R

    (2007) Fearful expressions gain preferential access to awareness during continuous flash suppression

    Emotion 7:882–886.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.882

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Zhan M
    2. Hortensius R
    3. de Gelder B

    (2015) The body as a tool for anger awareness--differential effects of angry facial and bodily expressions on suppression from awareness

    Plos One 10:e0139768.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139768

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Zhan M
    2. de Gelder B

    (2018) Unconscious fearful body perception enhances discrimination of conscious anger expressions under continuous flash suppression

    Neuropsychologia 23:.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.04.019

    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Petra Vetter

   1. Department of Psychology, Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, United States
   2. Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing—review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Stephanie Badde

   For correspondence

   petra.vetter@rhul.ac.uk

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6516-4637

2. Stephanie Badde

   Department of Psychology, Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Petra Vetter

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4005-5503

3. Elizabeth A Phelps

   1. Department of Psychology, Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, United States
   2. Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Funding acquisition, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Marisa Carrasco

   Department of Psychology, Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing—review and editing

   For correspondence

   marisa.carrasco@nyu.edu

   Competing interests

   Reviewing editor, eLife

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1002-9056

• 4,823

  views

• 457

  downloads

• 22

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.