The effects of task-relevant saccadic eye movements performed during the encoding of a serial sequence on visuospatial memory performance

Abstract

Visuospatial working memory (VSWM) is a set of cognitive processes used to encode, maintain and manipulate spatial information. One important feature of VSWM is that it has a limited capacity such that only few items can be actively stored and manipulated simultaneously. Given the limited capacity, it is important to determine the conditions that affect memory performance as this will improve our understanding of the architecture and function of VSWM. Previous studies have shown that VSWM is disrupted when task-irrelevant eye movements are performed during the maintenance phase; however, relatively fewer studies examined the role of eye movements performed during the encoding phase. On one hand, performing eye movements during the encoding phase could result in a stronger memory trace because the memory formation is reinforced by the activation of the motor system. On the other hand, performing eye movements to each target could disrupt the configural processing of the spatial array because the spatial representation has to be updated with each movement to maintain perceptual stability. Therefore, this work was conducted to examine whether task-relevant saccadic eye movements performed during the encoding phase of a visuospatial working memory task affect the recall of serially presented targets. Results from two experiments showed that average recall accuracy was significantly higher when the spatial array (set size ≥ 7) was encoded using a covert strategy-that is, while participants fixated on a central target, in comparison to an overt strategy-that is, while participants moved their eyes to fixate on each target. Furthermore, the improvement in accuracy was evident only for targets presented in the first half of the sequence, suggesting that the primacy effect is modulated by the presence of eye movements. We propose that executing saccades during encoding could interfere with the ability to use a chunking strategy or disrupt active visualization of the configuration. In conclusion, this is the first study to show that task-relevant saccadic eye movements performed during encoding may actually reduce the spatial span of VSWM. These results extend the current knowledge about the role of eye movements in VSWM, and have implications for future studies investigating the VSWM.

Multiple levels of mental attentional demand modulate peak saccade velocity and blink rate

“…Most eye-tracking studies examine eye movements associated with perceptual attention or perceptual processes (e.g., automatic bottom-up attention, orienting, vigilance; see Mackworth et al., 1964 ; Oken et al., 2006 for a review). Fewer eye-tracking studies examine attentional focus associated with tasks of executive attention or working memory ( Patt et al., 2014 ; Martin et al., 2017 ; Tremblay et al., 2006 ; Theeuwes et al., 2005 ; Lawrence et al., 2004 ; Postle et al., 2006 ). Mental attention is similar to executive attention and working memory in that it is effortful and requires high levels of top down control.…”

Gaze-based and attention-based rehearsal in spatial working memory.

“…C. Morey et al, 2017;Theeuwes et al, 2009;Tremblay et al, 2006), and with correlational evidence suggesting that some patterns of eye-movements are associated with better recall from spatial WM (Czoschke, Henschke, & Lange, 2019;Godijn & Theeuwes, 2012;Guérard et al, 2009;C. C. Morey et al, 2017;Tremblay et al, 2006; but see Lange & Engbert, 2013;Martin, Tapper, Gonzalez, Leclerc, & Niechwiej-Szwedo, 2017).…”

Eye Movements in the “Morris Maze” Spatial Working Memory Task Reveal Deficits in Strategic Planning

“…Consistent with this idea, recent research has shown that visuospatial information is more accurately recalled for locations that are the target of an eye movement (Ma, Husain, & Bays, 2014;Bays & Husain, 2008). There is also evidence that maintaining memory for visuospatial location benefits from activation of oculomotor representations (Pearson et al, 2014) and that maintaining retinotopic correspondence between fixation and remembered locations supports recall (Martin et al, 2017;Patt et al, 2014). Interestingly, patients with PD did not show the same relationship between fixations on Token Found locations in the four-box condition and BSEs in the eight-box task (Figure 3B).…”

“…Yet recordings of naturally occurring eye movements made by participants during the spatial span task show that an adaptive strategy is to maintain fixation during stimulus presentation and maintenance. One explanation for this apparent contradiction is that shifts in fixation disrupt retinotopic encoding and maintenance of visuospatial coordinates, meaning that it is advantageous to maintain correspondences between retinotopic and craniotopic reference frames during visuospatial memory tasks (Martin, Tapper, Gonzalez, Leclerc, & Niechwiej-Szwedo, 2017;Patt et al, 2014).…”