The interaction between memorized objects and abrupt onsets in oculomotor capture

Wong, Jason H.; Peterson, Matthew S.

doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0136-4

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found that, despite instructions to maintain central fixation, the eyes were often captured by memory-match stimuli at the start of the retention interval (Figure 2), consistent with previous studies (Hollingworth et al, 2013;Hollingworth, Richard, & Luck, 2008;Mannan et al, 2010;Olivers et al, 2006;Silvis & Van der Stigchel, 2014;Wong & Peterson, 2011). However, this initial bias did not result in a sustained shift of attention as measured through pupillometry (Figure 3 and Figure 4); rather, later in time, attention appeared to be biased away from memory-match stimuli.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Attending and inhibiting stimuli that match the contents of visual working memory: Evidence from eye movements and pupillometry

Mathôt

Heusden

Stigchel

2015

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When you keep a red apple in working memory, your attention is usually—but not always—attracted by other red objects. The conditions under which the contents of visual working memory guide visual attention are still unclear. Here we tested whether attention is indeed biased toward memory-match stimuli, and, if so, whether this bias is transient or sustained. We used a new pupillometric technique, which exploits that the pupil is larger when you covertly attend to dark, compared to bright, stimuli. This allowed us to test whether and when attention was biased toward memory-match stimuli, by placing them either on a dark or a bright background, while measuring pupil size over time. We found that the eyes were captured by memory-match probes early on in the trial. However, the pupillary data suggested that there was no sustained attention bias toward memory-match probes later in time; rather, attention appeared to be biased away from them. Together, our results suggest that: (1) memory-match stimuli automatically capture attention; but (2) they do so only briefly; and (3) they may even become inhibited later in time.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Attending and inhibiting stimuli that match the contents of visual working memory: Evidence from eye movements and pupillometry

Mathôt

Heusden

Stigchel

2015

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Results show that remembering an object (e.g., a colored disk) can cause the eyes to make an involuntary saccade to that object if it appears in an unrelated search task (Olivers, Meijer, & Theeuwes, 2006). Additionally, the rate at which memorized objects capture the eyes is equal to or stronger than an abrupt onset (Wong & Peterson, 2011). Previous results demonstrating oculomotor capture involved salient environmental events, such as the abrupt onset of a new object or a change in object luminance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 73%

What we remember affects how we see: Spatial working memory steers saccade programming

Wong

Peterson

2012

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relationships between visual attention, saccade programming, and visual working memory have been hypothesized for over a decade. Awh, Jonides, and Reuter-Lorenz (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24(3):780-90, 1998) and Awh et al. (Psychological Science 10(5):433-437, 1999) proposed that rehearsing a location in memory also leads to enhanced attentional processing at that location. In regard to eye movements, Belopolsky and Theeuwes (Attention, Perception & Psychophysics 71(3):620-631, 2009) found that holding a location in working memory affects saccade programming, albeit negatively. In three experiments, we attempted to replicate the findings of Belopolsky and Theeuwes (Attention, Perception & Psychophysics 71(3):620-631, 2009) and determine whether the spatial memory effect can occur in other saccade-cuing paradigms, including endogenous central arrow cues and exogenous irrelevant singletons. In the first experiment, our results were the opposite of those in Belopolsky and Theeuwes (Attention, Perception & Psychophysics 71(3):620-631, 2009), in that we found facilitation (shorter saccade latencies) instead of inhibition when the saccade target matched the region in spatial working memory. In Experiment 2, we sought to determine whether the spatial working memory effect would generalize to other endogenous cuing tasks, such as a central arrow that pointed to one of six possible peripheral locations. As in Experiment 1, we found that saccade programming was facilitated when the cued location coincided with the saccade target. In Experiment 3, we explored how spatial memory interacts with other types of cues, such as a peripheral color singleton target or irrelevant onset. In both cases, the eyes were more likely to go to either singleton when it coincided with the location held in spatial working memory. On the basis of these results, we conclude that spatial working memory and saccade programming are likely to share common overlapping circuitry.

show abstract

“…At the same time, a number of studies have shown that VWM content can bias even simple orienting saccades, when doing so is either irrelevant to, or even against task goals (Hollingworth et al, 2013;Mannan et al, 2010;Mathôt, Van Heusden, & Van der Stigchel, 2015;Olivers et al, 2006;Soto et al, 2005;Wong & Peterson, 2011). In these tasks observers remembered a color for a prospective memory test, while performing an eye movement-related task in between, in which either that target or a distractor could carry the memorized color.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to do so, the brain has to maintain some representation of what we are currently looking for. This representation, referred to as attentional template or search template, is thought to be activated in visual working memory (VWM; Carlisle, Arita, Pardo, & Woodman, 2011;Desimone & Duncan, 1995;Duncan & Humphreys, 1989;Hollingworth, Matsukura, & Luck, 2013;Mannan, Kennard, Potter, Pan, & Soto, 2010;Wong & Peterson, 2011), from which it guides selection of matching stimuli in the outside world.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Capture of eye movements by task-relevant features has been observed during search (Schreij, Los, Theeuwes, Enns, & Olivers, 2014;Wu & Remington, 2003). Moreover, studies have demonstrated that VWM content can bias simple orienting saccades, including in cases when doing so is counterproductive (Hollingworth et al, 2013;Mannan et al, 2010;Olivers et al, 2006;Soto et al, 2005;Wong & Peterson, 2011). However, in all these studies this bias was observed during the target selection task, when observers were instructed or required to make eye movements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Subtle eye movement metrics reveal task-relevant representations prior to visual search

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual search is thought to be guided by an active visual working memory (VWM) representation of the task-relevant features, referred to as the search template. In three experiments using a probe technique, we investigated which eye movement metrics reveal which search template is activated prior to the search, and distinguish it from future relevant or no longer relevant VWM content. Participants memorized a target color for a subsequent search task, while being instructed to keep central fixation. Before the search display appeared, we briefly presented two task-irrelevant colored probe stimuli to the left and right from fixation, one of which could match the current target template. In all three experiments, participants made both more and larger eye movements towards the probe matching the target color. The bias was predominantly expressed in microsaccades, 100-250 ms after probe onset. Experiment 2 used a retro-cue technique to show that these metrics distinguish between relevant and dropped representations. Finally, Experiment 3 used a sequential task paradigm, and showed that the same metrics also distinguish between current and prospective search templates. Taken together, we show how subtle eye movements track task-relevant representations for selective attention prior to visual search.

show abstract

The interaction between memorized objects and abrupt onsets in oculomotor capture

Cited by 10 publications

References 23 publications

Attending and inhibiting stimuli that match the contents of visual working memory: Evidence from eye movements and pupillometry

Attending and inhibiting stimuli that match the contents of visual working memory: Evidence from eye movements and pupillometry

What we remember affects how we see: Spatial working memory steers saccade programming

Subtle eye movement metrics reveal task-relevant representations prior to visual search

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About