Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- Dual-task interference (1)
- Haptics (1)
- Kinesthetic representations (1)
- Vision (1)
- Visual representations (1)
Institute
- Department Psychologie (2) (remove)
Direction of gaze (eye angle + head angle) has been shown to be important for representing space for action, implying a crucial role of vision for spatial updating. However, blind people have no access to vision yet are able to perform goal-directed actions successfully. Here, we investigated the role of visual experience for localizing and updating targets as a function of intervening gaze shifts in humans. People who differed in visual experience (late blind, congenitally blind, or sighted) were briefly presented with a proprioceptive reach target while facing it. Before they reached to the target's remembered location, they turned their head toward an eccentric direction that also induced corresponding eye movements in sighted and late blind individuals. We found that reaching errors varied systematically as a function of shift in gaze direction only in participants with early visual experience (sighted and late blind). In the late blind, this effect was solely present in people with moveable eyes but not in people with at least one glass eye. Our results suggest that the effect of gaze shifts on spatial updating develops on the basis of visual experience early in life and remains even after loss of vision as long as feedback from the eyes and head is available.
The present study investigated whether visual and kinesthetic stimuli are stored as multisensory or modality-specific representations in unimodal and crossmodal working memory tasks. To this end, angle-shaped movement trajectories were presented to 16 subjects in delayed matching-to-sample tasks either visually or kinesthetically during encoding and recognition. During the retention interval, a secondary visual or kinesthetic interference task was inserted either immediately or with a delay after encoding. The modality of the interference task interacted significantly with the encoding modality. After visual encoding, memory was more impaired by a visual than by a kinesthetic secondary task, while after kinesthetic encoding the pattern was reversed. The time when the secondary task had to be performed interacted with the encoding modality as well. For visual encoding, memory was more impaired, when the secondary task had to be performed at the beginning of the retention interval. In contrast, memory after kinesthetic encoding was more affected, when the secondary task was introduced later in the retention interval. The findings suggest that working memory traces are maintained in a modality-specific format characterized by distinct consolidation processes that take longer after kinesthetic than after visual encoding.