Featural and configural information are the two main ways in which individuals process faces. Featural processing involves the recognition of local facial details, while configural processing involves the perception of spatial relationships between facial features. An increasing number of electrophysiological studies have shown differences in neural mechanisms, with the right hemisphere of the brain being more sensitive to configural faces than to featural faces. Configural and featural faces also elicit different ERP components, with the early ERP component being more sensitive to configural faces and the later ERP component being more sensitive to featural faces. Social information, such as facial expressions and race, can influence both types of processing, potentially due to differences in attention. However, it is unclear how featural and configural processing differ in terms of attention and how they are affected by facial social information. Gaze direction, as a key aspect of social attention, may play an important role in attracting attention during face processing. Further research is needed to explore the impact of eye gaze on different face processing mechanisms. This study used the N2pc component to investigate the differences in attention between configural and featural processing, as well as the impact of gaze direction, in a visual search task. The N2pc is believed to indicate the shift of attention to a target during visual search, and is measured by comparing the brain activity on the side of the target versus the opposite side. The study employed a 2 (target face type: configural, featural) 2 (eye gaze: direct, averted) within-subjects experimental design. Participants were asked to search for a specific target face in two blocks: one with configural faces and the other with featural faces, with gaze direction randomized within each block. For example, in the configural face target condition, participants had to identify one configural face among three featural faces in target-present trials. In target-absent trials, all four faces were featural faces. In both target-present and target-absent trials, all faces had averted or direct gaze. The results of the study showed that the N2pc component was elicited by the configural face, but not by the featural faces during the 260-360 ms. There was no impact of eye direction on this response. In terms of the N170 component, the featural face elicited a larger amplitude and earlier latency than the configural face. This advantage in processing featural faces was more pronounced in the averted gaze condition than in the direct gaze condition. The findings suggest that different types of faces can evoke different levels of attention, with configural faces more likely to attract spatial selective attention. This could be due to the faster processing of holistic information compared to feature information during face perception. The N170 component for featural faces was larger and occurred earlier than for configural faces, suggesting that the advantage in processing featural faces is evident in the stage of encoding facial structure information. Interestingly, the influence of gaze was only observed in the N170 component but not in the N2pc component. This may indicate that gaze can affect the processing of facial configuration and features, but this effect may change over time. At the face encoding stage represented by the N170 component, averted gaze faces were processed with higher priority compared to direct gaze faces, making it easier to differentiate between configural and featural faces. Consistent with previous research on social cues, while gaze direction can impact the processing of different types of faces, it does not affect the attention evoked by the faces themselves. Therefore, whether in averted or direct gaze conditions, only configural faces were able to elicit the N2pc component. In short, the current study has affirmed that the effect of gaze on configural and featural processing is not due to attentional changes, but rather by affecting the encoding process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]