Computational similarities between social and nonsocial processing in cognitive control.

It is widely accepted that upright faces are processed more holistically than inverted faces, but there is limited evidence on how face orientation affects holistic processing in conflict tasks and how this differs in arrow and gaze processing. To address these gaps, we devised a novel arrow-gaze Stroop task involving both arrow and gaze judgments. Our results show that face orientation does not influence the congruency effect in this Stroop task. However, the congruency effect is significantly stronger for gaze judgments than for arrow judgments. We used hierarchical Bayesian estimation to evaluate three conflict drift-diffusion models-the diffusion model for conflict tasks, the dual-stage two-phase model, and the shrinking spotlight model (SSP)-to examine holistic cognitive control mechanisms. Our model-based analysis reveals that the SSP outperforms the diffusion model for conflict and dual-stage two-phase models. Representational similarity analysis of the SSP model parameters between gaze and arrow judgments suggests two key findings: (a) Feature-based processing of both arrow and gaze tasks, along with conflict-related factors, explains the similar congruency effects observed across both face orientations, while the processing speed of relevant stimulus attributes impacts overall performance, and (b) there are both shared and dissociable attentional effects between gaze and arrow processing. These findings provide new insights into the shared computational mechanisms underlying social and nonsocial cognitive control processes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).