Cited by 154Face Recognition and PerceptionPrimate Behavior and EcologyAction Observation and Synchronization

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 55 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Neurons in the Monkey Amygdala Detect Eye Contact during Naturalistic Social Interactions

Open access

Abstract

Summary Primates explore the visual world through eye-movement sequences. Saccades bring details of interest into the fovea while fixations stabilize the image [1]. During natural vision, social primates direct their gaze at the eyes of others to communicate their own emotions and intentions and to gather information about the mental states of others [2]. Direct gaze is an integral part of facial expressions that signals cooperation or conflict over resources and social status [3-6]. Despite the great importance of making and breaking eye contact in the behavioral repertoire of primates, little is known about the neural substrates that support these behaviors. Here we show that the monkey amygdala contains neurons that respond selectively to fixations at the eyes of others and to eye contact. These “eye cells” share several features with the canonical, visually responsive neurons in the monkey amygdala, however, they respond to the eyes only when they fall within the fovea of the viewer, either as a result of a deliberate saccade, or as eyes move into the fovea of the viewer during a fixation intended to explore a different feature. The presence of eyes in peripheral vision fails to activate the eye cells. These findings link the primate amygdala to eye-movements involved in the exploration and selection of details in visual scenes that contain socially and emotionally salient features.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The monkey amygdala contains neurons that respond selectively when another monkey’s eyes fall in the fovea, including a subpopulation that distinguishes direct eye contact from averted gaze. These “eye cells” show nested selectivity with canonical visually responsive amygdala neurons and may support gaze-mediated social behavior.

Key findings

Of 318 well-isolated neurons, 38 (12%) significantly changed firing rate when subjects fixated the eyes of movie monkeys (Q: 8/104, 7.7%; Z: 27/171, 15.8%; G: 3/42, 7.1%); these cells did not respond, or responded less, to fixations on the mouth, and 14 additional cells responded to all fixations independent of target.

  • A subpopulation of 10 eye-fixation cells fired significantly more during eye contact than during fixations on averted eyes; one example increased up to 76 Hz during eye contact versus a mean 10 Hz during averted-eye fixations, with a 5 Hz baseline. Two cells instead responded more to averted gaze (cell 1: 15.2 Hz vs. 7.7 Hz; cell 2: 12.0 Hz vs. 9.7 Hz).
  • Eye cells responded only when eyes were in the fovea, not in peripheral vision; saccades were not necessary. Five eye-fixation cells responded similarly after saccades to the eyes and passive appearance of eyes at fixation (latency 121±27 ms vs. 133±74 ms; t3=−0.574, P=0.697).
  • Eye cells appear to be a specialized class of visually responsive amygdala neurons: 248/318 (78%) responded to video onset/offset, all 52 fixation cells responded to visual stimuli, and 52/248 (21%) of visually responsive cells also responded to eye fixations.

Methods

Recorded neuronal activity from the amygdalae of three monkeys (Q, Z, G) while they viewed videos of natural behaviors by unfamiliar conspecifics; two subjects also viewed static frames extracted from each video.

  • Identified fixations on facial features and periods of eye contact by combining the viewer’s scanpath with an ethogram marking the movie monkey’s gaze direction.
  • Main analyses included Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for fixation-related firing changes, bootstrap shuffling of the movie-monkey ethogram for eye-contact selectivity, t-tests/chi-square comparisons, and histology/recording-site reconstruction; additional paradigms tested static images and cue-triggered face presentation with eyes at the fovea or >4° from center.

Limitations

Stated: the design precluded analyses of higher-order levels such as eye contact during appeasing or affiliative interactions, or eye contact with a friend versus a foe; the authors also note that a more complete answer on eye-contact cells is expected from a larger population.

  • Evident: key subpopulations were small—10 eye-contact cells, only 2 eye-contact cells tested with static images, 5 eye-fixation cells in the passive-viewing paradigm, and 3 nonselective-fixation cells—limiting generalizability.
  • Evident: the study is recording-based and does not causally manipulate eye cells; the authors state that future studies blocking or enhancing eye-cell activity are needed.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cub.2014.08.063

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 55 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 34 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 12
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 11
20 of 20
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Little is known about the neural substrates that support making and breaking eye contact in primates.

    “Despite the great importance of making and breaking eye contact in the behavioral repertoire of primates, little is known about the neural substrates that support these behaviors.”
1 of 1

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentz = 6.451reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “z=6.451, p < .0001”

  • Consistentz = 5.655reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “z=5.655, p < .0001”

2 of 2

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Rates contradict the claimed preference for averted gaze

    Major

    The rates are listed in eye-contact-then-averted order, and both cells have higher rates during eye contact, contrary to the stated preference for averted gaze.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 49 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–154 of 154

Metadata

Authors
Mosher, C. P., Zimmerman, P. E., & Gothard, K. M.
Affiliations
University of Arizona (US)
Corresponding author
Gothard, Katalin M.
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
24
Issue
20
Pages
2459-2464
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2111767565
Cited by
154
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2
FWCI
7.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • U.S. Public Health Service (R21086065)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (P50MH100023, R21MH086065)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
Keywords
eye contact, amygdala, saccades, fixation, fovea, social cognition, primate social behavior, naturalistic social interaction, rhesus monkeys, theory of mind, facial expressions, social communication, visual stability
MeSH terms
Amygdala, Animals, Haplorhini, Behavior, Animal, Face, Neurons, Social Behavior, Video Recording, Visual Perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review