N as either 
Owner or Observer. The Owner held his or her hands in different postures while the Observer simply watched. There were two hand posture conditions. In the On Hands condition, Owners held their hands flat on the table, palms up, and touching so that the two hands formed a contiguous surface–the stimuli were projected down onto their hands. In the No Hands condition, Owners held their hands on their lap, beneath the table–the stimuli were projected down onto two adjacent objects that formed a control surface (see Figure 1).Each trial began with a central fixation flanked by two squares. After a random delay (1500?000 ms), the border of one square AIC316 web thickened (+0.2 cm to each side of the square) in order to capture attention. After 200 ms, one of three events occurred: on 70 of trials, the target (a circle) appeared inside the cued square (valid cue); on 20 of trials, the target appeared inside the non-cued square (invalid cue); and on 10 of trials, no target appeared (catch trials). The participants’ task was to identify the location of the target as quickly as possible, and to withhold a response on catch trials. The Owner responded using left and right foot pedals. The Observer responded using left and right mouse buttons. RT was measured from target onset to response. Both participants responded on every trial. Participants were instructed to remain fixated at the central location throughout each trial. Hand position (On Hands or No Hands) was blocked and randomly ordered, with 60 MedChemExpress GW 501516 trials per block. After performing both hand position blocks, the Owner and Observer switched positions and roles. Thus, there were 240 trials in total, for both participants. Cue Validity was balanced at prescribed levels (70 valid, 20 invalid, 10 catch trials).Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.orgMay 2015 | Volume 6 | ArticleTaylor et al.Joint attention for stimuli on the handsResultsFour participants were removed prior to analysis for responding to at least 40 catch trials in either the Owner or Observer conditions. Another five participants were removed 
because they responded with exceptionally poor accuracy (>3 SDs from the mean). Among remaining participants, incorrect responses were rare (<5 of responses to non-catch trials) and were also removed from analysis. RTs faster than 100 ms and slower than 1000 ms were excluded to obscure errors of apprehension and lapses of attention (these are the same RT exclusion criteria used in Reed et al., 2006; Taylor and Witt, 2014). These trials comprised 2.0 of correct responses to non-catch trials.1 To assess how orienting attention on one's own hands compared to orienting attention on another person's hands, we conducted a 2 (Role: Owner vs. Observer) ?2 (Hand Position: On Hands vs. No Hands) ?2 (Cue Validity: Valid Cue vs. Invalid Cue) repeated-measures ANOVA. Confirming the basic result of the spatial cueing paradigm, validly cued targets were detected faster than invalidly cued targets, indicating a main effect of Cue Validity, F(1,56) = 1138.62, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.95. In addition, the p position of the hands influenced RTs, indicating a main effect of Hand Position, F(1,56) = 8.96, p = 0.004, 2 = 0.14. The p participants' current role also influenced RTs, as Observers were faster to respond than Owners, indicating a main effect of Role, F(1,56) = 39.73, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.41. Critically, the effect of p delayed orienting on the hands depended on the participants' current role. There w.N as either Owner or Observer. The Owner held his or her hands in different postures while the Observer simply watched. There were two hand posture conditions. In the On Hands condition, Owners held their hands flat on the table, palms up, and touching so that the two hands formed a contiguous surface--the stimuli were projected down onto their hands. In the No Hands condition, Owners held their hands on their lap, beneath the table--the stimuli were projected down onto two adjacent objects that formed a control surface (see Figure 1).Each trial began with a central fixation flanked by two squares. After a random delay (1500?000 ms), the border of one square thickened (+0.2 cm to each side of the square) in order to capture attention. After 200 ms, one of three events occurred: on 70 of trials, the target (a circle) appeared inside the cued square (valid cue); on 20 of trials, the target appeared inside the non-cued square (invalid cue); and on 10 of trials, no target appeared (catch trials). The participants' task was to identify the location of the target as quickly as possible, and to withhold a response on catch trials. The Owner responded using left and right foot pedals. The Observer responded using left and right mouse buttons. RT was measured from target onset to response. Both participants responded on every trial. Participants were instructed to remain fixated at the central location throughout each trial. Hand position (On Hands or No Hands) was blocked and randomly ordered, with 60 trials per block. After performing both hand position blocks, the Owner and Observer switched positions and roles. Thus, there were 240 trials in total, for both participants. Cue Validity was balanced at prescribed levels (70 valid, 20 invalid, 10 catch trials).Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.orgMay 2015 | Volume 6 | ArticleTaylor et al.Joint attention for stimuli on the handsResultsFour participants were removed prior to analysis for responding to at least 40 catch trials in either the Owner or Observer conditions. Another five participants were removed because they responded with exceptionally poor accuracy (>3 SDs from the mean). Among remaining participants, incorrect responses were rare (<5 of responses to non-catch trials) and were also removed from analysis. RTs faster than 100 ms and slower than 1000 ms were excluded to obscure errors of apprehension and lapses of attention (these are the same RT exclusion criteria used in Reed et al., 2006; Taylor and Witt, 2014). These trials comprised 2.0 of correct responses to non-catch trials.1 To assess how orienting attention on one's own hands compared to orienting attention on another person's hands, we conducted a 2 (Role: Owner vs. Observer) ?2 (Hand Position: On Hands vs. No Hands) ?2 (Cue Validity: Valid Cue vs. Invalid Cue) repeated-measures ANOVA. Confirming the basic result of the spatial cueing paradigm, validly cued targets were detected faster than invalidly cued targets, indicating a main effect of Cue Validity, F(1,56) = 1138.62, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.95. In addition, the p position of the hands influenced RTs, indicating a main effect of Hand Position, F(1,56) = 8.96, p = 0.004, 2 = 0.14. The p participants' current role also influenced RTs, as Observers were faster to respond than Owners, indicating a main effect of Role, F(1,56) = 39.73, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.41. Critically, the effect of p delayed orienting on the hands depended on the participants' current role. There w.
