64 Chapter 3 To examine participants’ neural responses to a direct gaze from self and an unfamiliar other (∆direct minus averted gaze contrast) we constructed a GLM with eight regressors indicating cue onset for each task condition (i.e., direct and averted gaze of own child, unfamiliar child, unfamiliar adult, self) and one regressor for subjective rating onsets. Cue onset regressors were defined from the onset of the video stimulus and modeled for the duration of this period (variable between 16-38 s). The subjective rating regressor was defined from the onset of each question and modeled for the duration the question was displayed on the screen (self-paced; Mduration = 3311 ms; SDduration = 1316 ms; range: 1029-9002 ms). We included 6 motion parameters (based on the realignment parameters) to correct for head motion. First, eight first-level SPM T-contrasts were specified for each task condition. T-contrast images of self and unfamiliar adult were entered in a 2 × 2 full factorial ANOVA design to examine task effects (for the 2 × 4 ANOVA design including all task conditions, see Supplement S3.2). To examine associations between CEM and participants’ neural responses to looking either the self or another person in the eye (∆direct minus averted gaze contrast), we performed two separate whole-brain regression analyses with CEM scores as a between-subject regressor for videos of the self and an unfamiliar other separately. The first analysis tested for associations between inter-individual variation in CEM scores and neural responses to gazing into one’s own eyes (i.e., ∆ direct minus averted gaze in videos of the self). The second analysis tested for associations between interindividual variation in CEM scores and neural responses to gazing into someone else’s eyes (i.e., ∆ direct minus averted gaze in videos of an unfamiliar other). All whole-brain results were corrected for multiple comparisons with Family-Wise Error (FWE) cluster correction at p <.05 (with a p <.001 cluster-forming threshold). RESULTS Mood responses To examine whether CEM is associated with participants’ mood when gazing into one’s own or another person’s eyes, we performed a generalized linear mixed regression model with CEM, gaze direction (direct versus averted), and target (self versus unfamiliar other), and their interactions as predictors for participants’ mood responses. This analysis yielded a significant interaction between CEM and gaze direction (B = 0.67, SE = 0.31, t(547) = 2.20, p = .028, d = 0.19; Figure 3.2). Post-hoc analyses indicated that participants with higher levels of CEM reported a significantly less positive mood after direct gaze (B = -1.62, SE = 0.67, t(77) = -2.41, p = .018, d = 0.55), but not after averted gaze (p = .218). There was no significant interaction between CEM scores and target on participants’ mood responses (p = .970), indicating that participants’ mood did not differ after videos of themselves versus an unfamiliar other. There was no significant three-way interaction between CEM scores, target, and gaze direction on
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw