Gaze Aversion: An Introduction

When people are engaged in difficult cognitive activity (e.g., retrieving information from memory, on-line processing, speech planning), they typically look away from the object upon which their attention had previously been focused (be it a face, book, VCR monitor, etc.). This act of ‘gaze aversion’ (GA) can involve a change in one’s head and eye orientation, a change in one’s eye orientation only, or a covering of the eyes. Adults appear sophisticated in their use of this strategy, and will spontaneously and reliably avert their gaze away from potentially distracting stimuli during cognitive activity (Doherty-Sneddon, Bruce, Bonner, Longbotham & Doyle 2002; Glenberg, Shroeder, & Robertson, 1998; Kinsbourne, 1972; Kocel, Galin, Ornstein, & Merrin, 1972; Ehrlichman, Weiner, & Baker, 1974; Gur, 1975; Meskin & Singer, 1974). Further, the amount of time spent engaged in GA has been shown to increase as task difficulty increases (Glenberg et al., 1998). So, this act of GA promises to offer an overt cue of cognitive difficulty. More importantly, Glenberg et al. (1998) report that, under certain task conditions, when adults engage in GA during the thinking stage of a question-answer interaction their accuracy increases. So, gaze aversion also appears to be functional. This finding is of consequence given that, until recently, little was known about children’s use of GA during pedagogical interactions. Research at Stirling University, funded by 3 ESRC grants, has therefore begun to examine children use GA to manage their own processing resources.

Visual Communication Cues

Research suggests that having access to task-relevant visual cues (including facial expressions, eye gaze, lip movements, and gestures) can actually benefit communication and social interaction (e.g., Clark & Brennan, 1991; Goldin-Meadow, Wein, & Chang, 1992; McNeill, 1985). For instance, when participants are required to verbally convey a visuospatial route to a partner their communication is more efficient when they have access to both the verbal description and to visual cues (e.g., Boyle, Anderson, & Newlands, 1994; McNeill, 1985). This finding is particularly true for children, who, in addition to employing more efficient communicative styles, also show performance benefits when they have access to visual cues (Doherty-Sneddon & Kent, 1996). Visual cues also play an important role in everyday communication. For example, they can enable a listener to recognize ambiguous utterances (e.g., Erber, 1979; Neely, 1956; McGurk & MacDonald, 1976), in addition to playing an important role in conversational turn-taking (e.g., Argyle & Cook, 1976; Kendon, 1967; Nielsen, 1964).

However, because visual cues serve as such rich sources of information they will necessarily carry a cognitive load. In other words, in order to process visual cues, valuable processing resources will be employed. Unsurprisingly then, task-irrelevant visual cues have been found to impede performance on a variety of tasks, including: spontaneous speech; the ability to correctly answer math and word questions; ability to learn mathematical strategies, and; visuospatial memory tasks (e.g., Beattie, 1981; Doherty-Sneddon, Bonner, & Bruce, 2001; Doherty-Sneddon, McAuley, Bruce, Langton, Blokland, & Anderson, 2000; Goldin-Meadow, Kim, and Singer, 1999). This finding makes sense: since the processing of visual cues requires cognitive effort, when unhelpful or task-irrelevant, such cues will potentially impede task performance.

Functional Benefits of Gaze Aversion

Given that visual cues can be distracting, there have been explicit comparisons of task performance under conditions where participants are required to continually monitor a complex visual stimulus (e.g., a face, a dynamic visuospatial scene) with those where they are required to avert their gaze away from that stimulus (e.g., by closing their eyes; looking at the floor). Typically, it is found that performance is better when participants avert their gaze away from the face/visuospatial scene (e.g., Glenberg et al., 1998; Doherty-Sneddon et al., 2001; although see Ehrlichman, 1981). For example, Glenberg et al. (1998) found that adults correctly answered a greater proportion of arithmetic and general knowledge questions when they were required to close their eyes whilst thinking about the answers to those questions than when they were required to monitor the interviewers’ face during the thinking stage of that interaction. Similarly, Doherty-Sneddon et al. (2001) found that 6- and 10-year old children were better able to retain visuospatial information during a 10 second retention interval under conditions where they looked at the floor than when looking at the experimenter’s face (see also Doherty-Sneddon et al., 2000). However, children’s performance was not significantly benefited from averting gaze away from a dynamic visuospatial array.  So, looking away from faces (and to a lesser extent complex visual scenes) whilst thinking can benefit task performance.

Children’s Use of Gaze Aversion

Whilst there is a good deal of literature describing how adults use GA as a strategy to enable concentration, until recently little was know about the way in which children use this strategy. Indeed, given that GA appears to be functional, it seems important to establish whether children also make effective use of this strategy.

Gaze aversion and visuo-spatial memory tasks

Doherty-Sneddon, Bonner, and Bruce (2001) have reported several studies where they examine children’s ability to perform a variety of visuospatial memory tasks whilst either looking at the experimenter, looking at a visuospatial pattern, or looking at the floor. These are described below:

Figure 1. An example of the stimuli used in the abstract shapes task. The left-hand column represents the shapes which the experimenter described. The remaining 3 columns represent the array which was presented to children for decision.

Doherty-Sneddon et al. (2001) found that 10-year olds’ performance was best when they looked at the floor whilst listening to the shape being described and worst when they looked at the face during this period. (See also Doherty-Sneddon, McAuley, Bruce, Langton, Blokland, & Anderson, 2000), suggesting that monitoring faces during cognitive activity can prove detrimental to children’s performance on cognitive tasks.

The Mr. Peanuts Task (De Ribaupierre & Bailleux, 1994). In the Mr. Peanuts Task, children are shown a clown figure with a varying number of dots on it. Their task is to remember the location of the dots over a 10 sec retention interval (RI). In the Doherty-Sneddon et al. (2001) study 6- and 10-year old children retained this sequence under 3 conditions: looking at the experimenter’s face, looking at a visuospatial pattern, looking at the floor. It was found that monitoring of the face, but not the visuospatial pattern, interfered with 6- and 10-year olds’ ability to correctly recollect the locations of the dots. So, again, evidence that faces can prove particularly distracting during cognitive activity.

 The Corsi Block Task (Corsi, 1972). In the Corsi Block Task an experimenter taps out a sequence on an array of blocks and the child has to reproduce this sequence after a 10 sec RI. In the Doherty-Sneddon et al. (2001) study 6-year old children retained this sequence under 3 conditions: looking at the experimenter’s face, looking at a visuospatial pattern, looking at the floor. It was again found that monitoring of the face, but not the visuospatial pattern, interfered with 6-year olds’ ability to correctly recollect the locations of the dots.

So, averting one’s gaze away from potentially distracting stimuli can benefit children’s performance on various visuospatial tasks. These findings support the position that, when task-irrelevant, or simply unhelpful, visual communication cues -- particularly those conveyed by faces -- can interfere with the processing of complicated material.

Gaze aversion in a question-answer interaction

A 6-year-old averts her gaze when asked a difficult question.

Recent research at Stirling funded by an ESRC grant has also looked at children’s use of GA during a question-answer interaction, a task which is more typical of those required of children during pedagogical interactions. In one study, 5- and 8-year olds were asked arithmetic and verbal reasoning questions by an adult interviewer (Doherty-Sneddon, Bruce, Bonner, Longbotham & Doyle, 2002). It was found that the 8-year olds demonstrated adult-like patterns of GA behaviour (see Glenberg et al., 1998). Thus, they spontaneously used quite high levels of GA during the thinking stage of the interaction, and were also found to increase their use of this behaviour as task difficulty increased. However, whilst the younger children were also shown to spontaneously use GA during the thinking stage of the interaction, the proportion of time spent engaged in this behaviour was much lower than that of 8-year olds, and the tendency to increase the use of GA in response to question difficulty was inconsistently applied. So, the effective use of GA during challenging periods of thought appears to be a skill which develops with age, rather than being an innate behavioural response to difficult cognitive activity.

An 8-year-old averts her gaze when thinking about the answer to a difficult question.

When Does This Strategy of Gaze Aversion Develop?

Recent research at Stirling, again funded by the ESRC, suggests that from the onset of their time spent in formal education (i.e., 5-years) children are beginning to use GA to control their cognitive load. This research is further discussed below. Indeed, as discussed above, by the time children reach 8 years of age, they appear as efficient as adults in their use of this strategy (Doherty-Sneddon et al., 2002). This finding is potentially important for the way in which children are seen to engage in learning situations. Indeed, in many cultures, looking away from the teacher during pedagogical interactions is discouraged, with GA being interpreted negatively. The tendency to instruct children to “Look at me” -- especially during periods of thought -- may therefore hinder, rather than benefit, performance. So, appropriately timed GA appears to be a behaviour which should be encouraged.

The Development of Gaze Aversion between 5-6 years of age: a cross-sectional study

Given that engagement in GA during the thinking stage of a question-answer interaction proves to be such a useful tool for recognising when a child is engaged in cognitive activity, it seems important to examine children’s development of this strategy. So, we know that 5-years olds have begun to employ this strategy, albeit inconsistently (Doherty-Sneddon et al., 2002). We also know that by 8-years of age, children’s use of GA resembles that of adults (Doherty-Sneddon et al., 2002; Glenberg et al., 1998).  However, we do not know at which age this transition from being a ‘novice’ user of GA to being an ‘expert’ user of GA presents. Recent research at Stirling, funded by an ESRC grant has begun to address this issue.

One goal of our last ESRC project was to explore if – and how – children’s use of GA during the thinking stage of a question-answer interaction changes across their fifth year of age. This age group was selected given the finding that compared to older children 5-year olds appear to spontaneously use low levels of GA (see Doherty-Sneddon et al., 2002). Two groups of children were recruited: those at the beginning of their fifth year, and those in the middle of their fifth year. These 2 cohorts were compared with a third cohort of 5-year olds (previously reported by Doherty-Sneddon et al., 2002), who were approaching the end of their fifth year.

Across these studies children engaged in a question-answer interaction with an adult, where they were required to answer arithmetic and verbal reasoning questions. The proportion of time spent each group of 5-year olds spent engaged in GA for each stage of that interaction (listening, thinking, and speaking) was measured. We found a substantial – and linear – increase in 5-year olds’ use of GA during the thinking stage of the interaction across their fifth year of age. So, those children at the end of their fifth year used higher levels of GA than those in the middle of their fifth year, who in turn used higher levels of GA than those just entering their fifth year. Furthermore, across each cohort use of GA increased in response to question difficulty (Phelps, Doherty-Sneddon, & Warnock, submitted).

So, even though 5-year olds appear less proficient in their use of GA than 8-year olds and adults (Doherty-Sneddon et al., 2002; Glenberg et al., 1998), this is a strategy which children have begun to use even at 5 years of age. Since use of GA increases with cognitive effort, GA therefore appears to indicate that children (even as young as 5-years of age) are engaged in cognitive activity.

Current Research 1

Whilst this finding clearly suggests that the use of GA, as a strategy for exerting control over one’s cognitive processing, develops substantially over a child’s 5th year of age, the data were obtained from 3 different samples of children. In our current ESRC grant, we have therefore been carrying out a longitudinal study of children’s use of GA in a single group of pupils as they progress through their 5th year of age.

Gaze Aversion and Children’s ‘Readiness to Learn’

   Preliminary work at Stirling also suggests that GA might indicate children’s ‘readiness to learn’ (Longbotham, 2001) -- or in Vygotsky’s (1934) terminology -- when they are working within their ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD). In this study, 6-year-olds worked through a set of increasing challenging arithmetic problems with a ‘teacher’. Progression on each problem was conceptualised as involving 3 stages of competence:  consistently incorrect responses => partially correct responses => consistently correct responses. It was found that GA was at its highest when children were at the stage of providing partially correct responses – in other words, when they were challenged yet working within their current capabilities. Patterns of GA therefore promise be a useful cue to judge when children are working within in their ZPD, and can potentially help adults decide when to provide or withdraw additional help to a child during pedagogical interactions.

Planned Research

The results of Longbotham’s (2001) study suggest that patterns of GA can be used to judge when children are working within in their ZPD. Thus, it was found that GA peaks when children are just about to fully comprehend a task. This makes sense given that children increase their use of GA as processing difficulty increases. When working within their ZPD children have sufficient understanding to attempt to solve a problem but this requires considerable mental effort.

However, this preliminary work involved a small sample, so we plan to investigate this proposed link between GA and ZPD further among 6- and 8-year olds. As in this previous study we plan to ‘coach’ each child on a given arithmetical concept (e.g., reversibility) with increasingly challenging levels of difficulty. Children will be required to work through each level as their understanding of the concept develops. Previous research suggests that children progress through three phases during this procedure (incorrect responses => partially correct responses => completely correct; Longbotham 2001), so we can track a child moving from a lack of understanding to full understanding of a type of arithmetical problem. If, as we predict, GA can be used reliably to judge children's 'readiness to learn' this will have significant implications for teaching. We anticipate that GA promises to be a nonverbal indicator of the period of transition from being a novice to an expert problem solver, peaking just before full comprehension.

Does Training in Gaze Aversion Benefit Performance?

Given that engagement in GA during the thinking stage of a question-answer interaction can facilitate performance among adults (Glenberg et al., 1998), the finding that 5-year olds inconsistently employ this strategy (Doherty-Sneddon et al., 2002) suggests a means by which their learning might be facilitated. So, this raises the question of whether training 5-year olds to increase their baseline levels of GA during the thinking stage of an interaction can improve their problem-solving abilities. Recent research at Stirling, funded by an ESRC grant has begun to address this issue. This research has important educational implications, for example, it may be that encouraging young children to look away from their teacher when thinking helps them learn more effectively. 

In our previous ESRC grant, we looked at the effects of training 5-year olds to increase their use of GA during the thinking stage of a question-answer interaction. As described above, this age group was selected given the finding that 5-year olds spontaneously use relatively low levels of GA (see Doherty-Sneddon et al., 2002). Thus any effects of gaze-training ought to be apparent among this age group.

Across 2 studies we trained one group of children (avert group) to look away from an interviewer whilst thinking about the solution to arithmetic and verbal reasoning questions, whilst a second group (control group) received no such training. Not only did the avert group readily learn to increase their use of GA during the thinking stage of the interaction, but there was also evidence of performance benefits under certain conditions. So, when questions were moderately difficult response accuracy was significantly higher for the avert group. However, there was no benefit of GA for either easy or difficult questions (Phelps et al., submitted). This pattern mirrors that reported in the adult literature (see Glenberg et al., 1998).

So, not only does GA serve to offer an overt cue that children are engaged in cognitive activity, but training young children to increase their use of this behaviour during the thinking stage of a question-answer interaction can also benefit performance. Such nonverbal cues will undoubtedly prove helpful to anyone involved in the assessment of children's knowledge and cognitive development, including teachers, parents, and developmental psychologists.

How Does Looking Away From Faces Benefit Performance?

Whilst these results suggest that GA is functional, they do not, however, address the way in which this strategy serves to benefit performance. One candidate is the ‘cognitive load hypothesis’ (e.g., Argyle & Cook, 1976; Glenberg, 1997; Glenberg et al., 1998). According to this account, when we process faces (and indeed any other potentially distracting environmental stimulus) during complicated cognitive activity (e.g., mental arithmetic, speech planning, on-line processing) performance will suffer because some ‘fixed attentional limit’ will be exceeded. Thus, we look away from faces to avoid ‘cognitive overload’. This perspective is supported by the finding that, as task difficulty increases, so too does the use of GA (e.g., Glenberg et al., 1998).

However, Beattie (1981) has argued that the ‘cognitive load hypothesis’ fails to appreciate the fact that adults can readily learn to perform two (or more) tasks simultaneously, and that once practiced in such ‘dual-tasks’ there is no impairment to their task performance (e.g., Spelke, Hirst, & Neisser, 1976). Instead, Beattie argues that prolonged mutual gaze leads to an increase in physiological arousal, and it is this physiological response which impedes one’s ability to concentrate on the task at hand, and subsequently impairs task performance – particularly so for increasingly difficult questions.

In addition to the potential cognitive and physiological influences on gaze behaviour, we must also consider the social constraints on prolonged gaze during conversation. Thus, social psychology has shown us that gaze plays an important role in expressing a variety of emotions, including intimacy, dominance, and social competence (e.g., Argyle, 1990; Argyle & Dean, 1965; Burgoon, Manusov, Minceo, & Hale, 1985). Given that there exist social constraints on patterns of gaze behaviour in conversation, GA might occur during a question-answer interaction to reduce heightened feelings of social anxiety or embarrassment. An increase in GA in response to increasingly difficult questions could therefore result owing to an increase in feelings of embarrassment or self-consciousness.

                      Another goal of our last ESRC project, therefore, was to explore whether the source of any benefits of engaging in GA are social and/or cognitive. So, does looking away from an interviewer’s face help children answer questions because it reduces the intake of complicated visual information, thus freeing-up valuable processing resources? Alternatively, does looking away from an interviewer’s face help children answer questions because it reduces feelings of embarrassment or self-consciousness – particularly so when questions prove more difficult? Perhaps both explanations play a part?

                       We therefore compared 8-year olds’ reliance on GA when answering verbal reasoning, arithmetic, and memory questions of increasing difficulty (easy, medium, and hard) when interviewed face-to-face (FTF) versus via live video-link (LVL). This age group was selected because previous research has found a very strong and consistent impact of cognitive difficulty on gaze aversion among 8-year olds (see Doherty-Sneddon et al., 2002). The two interview conditions were used because live video links have been reported to reduce the social impact of visual cues by reducing social copresence, thus allowing face-to-face access in a socially less potent manner (see Doherty-Sneddon & McAuley 2000). So, if GA in response to question difficulty is partly mediated by social factors, then GA should be attenuated for the LVL group relative to the FTF group. If GA in response to question difficulty is also partly mediated by cognitive factors, then use of GA should also increase in response to question difficulty for both groups of children (i.e., LVL and FTF). So, we were interested to see whether children interviewed via LVL would increase their use of GA in response to question difficulty to the same extent as those interviewed FTF.

            Our results suggest that both social and cognitive factors play a role in children’s use of GA during a question-answer interaction. Thus, we found that although children interviewed via LVL used less GA than those interviewed FTF (indicating a role of social factors), both groups increased their use of GA for the more difficult questions (Doherty-Sneddon & Phelps, in press).

Current Research 2

                       We are currently investigating the role of physiological arousal on GA by examining the physiological effects of prolonged mutual gaze on cognitive performance. The aim of this research is to determine whether GA is caused by social or cognitive factors. So, does GA occur because having someone look at us increases feelings of anxiety or embarrassment (social factors) or does GA occur to reduce the amount of information we are processing allowing us to think more clearly on the task at hand (cognitive factors)? Or perhaps both factors play a role in GA?

To help us answer this question we have begun recording physiological data while adults and children are carrying out tasks while looking at someone's face and while looking at the floor.

How do Teachers Detect and Interpret Gaze Aversion?

                       The final goal of our current ESRC grant is to establish how primary-school teachers detect and interpret patterns of GA in the classroom to promote learning during pedagogical interactions. For example, do teachers use patterns of GA in order to time their offering or withdrawal of assistance? To measure teacher’s responsiveness to GA, we are currently collecting both questionnaire data and detailed video analysis of natural teacher-pupil interactions as they occur in the classroom.  Teachers and primary school pupils from Stirling, Clackmannanshire and Glasgow are currently helping us address this question.

References

Abramovich, R., & Daly, E. M. (1978). Children’s use of head orientation and eye contact in making attributions of affiliation. Child Development, 49, 519-522.

Argyle, M. (1990). Bodily Communication . London: Methuen.

Argyle, M. & Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and Mutual Gaze. Cambridge University Press.

Argyle, M. & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance, and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289-304.

Beattie, G. W. (1981). A further investigation of the cognitive interference hypothesis of gaze patterns during conversation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 243-248.

Boyle, E. A., Anderson, A. H., & Newlands, A. (1994). The effects of visibility on dialogue and performance in a cooperative problem solving task. Language & Speech, 37, 1-20.

Burgoon, J., Manusov, V., Minceo, P., & Hale, J.L. (1985). Effects of gaze on hiring, credibility, attraction and relational message interpretation. Journal of Non-Verbal Behaviour,9,133-146.

Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127-149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Corsi, P. M. (1972). Human memory and the medial temporal region of the brain. dissertation Abstracts International, 34(2), 891B.

De Ribaupierre, A., & Bailleux, C. (1994). Developmental change in a spatial task of attentional capacity: An essay toward an integration of two working memory models. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 17, 5-35.

Doherty-Sneddon, G., Bonner, L., & Bruce, V. (2001). Cognitive demands of face processing. Memory & Cognition, 29, 909-919.

Doherty-Sneddon, G., Bruce, V. Bonner, L., Longbotham, S. & Doyle, C. (2002). Development of Gaze Aversion as Disengagement from Visual Information. Developmental Psychology, 38, 438-445.

Doherty-Sneddon, G., McAuley, S., Bruce, V., Langton, S., Blokland, A., & Anderson, A. H. (2000). Visual signals and children's communication: negative effects on task outcome. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18, 595-608.

Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Kent, G. (1996).  Visual signals and the communication abilities of children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 949-959.

Doherty-Sneddon, G., & McAuley, S. (2000). Influence of video mediation on adult-child interviews: implications for the use of the live link with child witnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 379-392.

Doherty-Sneddon & Phelps, in preparation

Ehrlichman, H. (1981). From gaze aversion to eye-movement suppression: An investigation of the cognitive interference explanation of gaze patterns during conversation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 233-241.

Ehrlichman, H., Weiner, S. L., & Baker, A. H. (1974). Effects of verbal and spatial questions on initial gaze shifts. Neuropsychologia, 12, 265-277.

Erber, N. P. (1979). Auditory-visual perception of speech with reduced optical clarity. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 22, 212-223.

Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioural & Brain Sciences, 20, 1-20.

Glenberg, A. M., Shroeder, J. L., & Robertson, D. A. (1998). Averting the gaze disengages the environment and facilitates remembering. Memory & Cognition, 26 (4), 651-658.

Goldin-Meadow, S., Kim, S., & Singer, M. (1999). What the teacher’s hands tell the student’s mind about math. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 720-730.

Goldin-Meadow, S., Wein, D., & Chang, C.  (1992). Assessing knowledge through gesture:  Using children's hands to read their minds. Cognition & Instruction, 9, 201-219.

Gur, R. E.  (1975)Conjugate lateral eye movements as an index of hemisphere activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 4, 751-757.

Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22-63.

Kinsbourne, M. (1972). Eye and head turning indicates cerebral liberalization. Science, 26, 22-63.

Kocel, K., Galin, D., Ornstein, R., & Merrin, E. L. (1972). Lateral eye movement and cognitive mode. Psychonomic Science, Vol. 27 (4), 223-224.

Longbotham, S. (2001). Can gaze aversion be used to predict a child’s understanding, learning and teaching abilities? Unpublished undergraduate dissertation, University of Stirling, Scotland.

McGurk, H., & MacDonald (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264, 746-748.

McNeill, D. (1985). So you think gestures are nonverbal? Psychological Review, 92, 350-371.

Meskin, B. B., & Singer, J. L. (1974). Daydreaming, reflective thought, and laterality of eye movements. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 30, 64-71.

Neely, K. K. (1956). Effect of visual factors on the intelligibility of speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 28, 1275-1277.

Nielsen, G. (1964). Studies in Self Confrontation. Copenhagen: Monksgaard.

Phelps, F., Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Warnock. (submitted). Helping Children Think: Gaze Aversion and Teaching. Submitted to Developmental Psychology.

Scheman, J. D., & Lochard, J. S. (1979). Development of gaze aversion in children. Child Development, 50, 594-596.

Spelke, E., Hirst, W., & Neisser, U. (1976). Skills of divided attention. Cognition, 4, 215-230.

Vygotsky, L. ( 1934,62). Thought and language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press,1962. (Originally Published, 1934).