To assess the first three hypotheses, Pearson’s correlations were used with partial correlations used to account for the effect of state anxiety (state score from the STAI . Tests of normality showed that all variables were normally distributed and hence suitable for this parametric test, except for the following: fixation count to head and body, dwell time to the head and background and time to first fixate the body. For correlations where one variable was not normally distributed both Pearson’s (r) and Spearman’s (rs) analyses were conducted and reported. Partial correlations are based on Pearson’s correlation regardless of distribution. All tests are two-tailed.
Show
Immediately following pre-processing got took place, the attention path research is searched to possess outliers (analysis activities bigger than step 1.five times brand new interquartile variety getting certain varying), from the exploring boxplots. The fresh new outlying studies situations (letter = 19) was in fact excluded for individual studies things from inside the eyes-recording measures , composed of 4.22% of your own overall studies.
Hypervigilance
No significant correlation was found between LSAS scores and time to first fixate the head r (16) = .101, p = .709 and the body r (21) = -.062, p = .790, (r s (21) = -.144, p = .522). This remained the case when controlling for state anxiety using a partial correlation, r (13) = .088, p = .754, and the body r (18) = -.070, p = .7710
502, p = .034 (Fig dos) (overlooking condition stress) and you will roentgen (15) = -.499, p = .041 (managing getting county stress).
There’s zero significant dating ranging from LSAS results and earliest fixation stage into system, roentgen (23) = -.141, p = .521 which had been also the circumstances when dealing with getting county nervousness playing with a partial relationship roentgen (20) = -.133, p =. 556
Reduction
There were no significant relationships between LSAS scores and dwell time to the head r (28) = -.073, p = .714 (rs (28) = -.132, p = .502) the body r (30) = -.090, p = .637, and the background r (30) = -.231, p = .220 (rs (30) = -.254, p = .175).
Limited correlations also indicated that whenever dealing with to own state stress, discover no significant relationships involving the LSAS scores and dwell for you personally to the head r (25) = -.063, p = .756, you roentgen (27) = -.090, p = .643, while the records r (27) = -.231, p = .229.
There was no significant relationship between the LSAS scores and fixation count to the head r (28) = .049, p = .805 (rs (28) = -.055, p = .782), the body r (29) = -.075, p = .700 (rs (21) = -.033, p = .865) and the background r (29) = -.258, p = .176. Partial correlations also showed that when controlling for state anxiety, there were still no significant relationships between the LSAS scores and fixation count to the head r (25) = .068, p = .743, the body r (26) = -.075, p = .704, and the background r (28) = -.258, p = .185
Hyperscanning
A robust inverse dating was found between scanpath size and you may LSAS get, roentgen (28) = -.483, p = .008 when ignoring county nervousness, and you can stayed when state nervousness is actually managed to own r (26) = -.498, p = .007 (Fig step three).
A robust bad dating is actually discover ranging from full saccade matter and you can LSAS score, roentgen (29) = -.511, p = .005 whenever overlooking condition nervousness, which stayed tall a when state anxiety was managed having roentgen (26) = -.516, p = .005. No matchmaking was discovered anywhere between mean saccade amplitude and LSAS rating however, r (29) = -.176, p = .362 even if condition stress is actually regulated getting r (26) = -.160, p = .417