Open Access
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (29)
- Postprint (8)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (1)
Language
- English (38)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (38)
Keywords
- eye movements (4)
- individual differences (4)
- reading (4)
- DLT (3)
- Spanish (3)
- activation (3)
- antilocality (3)
- child language (3)
- discourse (3)
- expectation (3)
Primary saccades are often followed by small secondary saccades, which are generally thought to reduce the distance between the saccade endpoint and target location. Accumulated evidence demonstrates that secondary saccades are subject to various influences, among which retinal feedback during postsaccadic fixation constitutes only one important signal. Recently, we reported that target eccentricity and an orientation bias influence the generation of secondary saccades. In the present study, we examine secondary saccades in the absence of postsaccadic visual feedback. Although extraretinal signals (e.g., efference copy) have received widespread attention in eye-movement studies, it is still unclear whether an extraretinal error signal contributes to the programming of secondary saccades. We have observed that secondary saccade latency and amplitude depend on primary saccade error despite the absence of postsaccadic visual feedback. Strong evidence for an extraretinal error signal influencing secondary saccade programming is given by the observation that secondary saccades are more likely to be oriented in a direction opposite to the primary saccade as primary saccade error shifts from target undershoot to overshoot. We further show how the functional relationship between primary saccade landing position and secondary saccade characteristics varies as a function of target eccentricity. We propose that initial target eccentricity and an extraretinal error signal codetermine the postsaccadic activity distribution in the saccadic motor map when no visual feedback is available.
The authors tested the hypothesis that with adequate practice, people can execute 2 cognitive operations in working memory simultaneously. In Experiment 1, 6 students practiced updating 2 items in working memory through 2 sequences of operations (1 numerical, 1 spatial). In different blocks, imperative stimuli for the 2 sequences of operations were presented either simultaneously or sequentially. Initially, most participants experienced substantial dual-task costs. After 24 sessions of practice, operation latencies for simultaneous presentation were equal to the maximum of times for the 2 operations in the sequential condition, suggesting perfect timesharing. Experiment 2 showed that a reduction of dual-task costs requires practice on the combination of the 2 updating tasks, not just practice on each individual task. Hence, the reduction of dual-task costs cannot be explained by shortening or automatization of individual operations
A mathematical model of working-memory capacity limits is proposed on the key assumption of mutual interference between items in working memory. Interference is assumed to arise from overwriting of features shared by these items. The model was fit to time-accuracy data of memory-updating tasks from four experiments using nonlinear mixed effect (NLME) models as a framework. The model gave a good account of the data from a numerical and a spatial task version. The performance pattern in a combination of numerical and spatial updating could be explained by variations in the interference parameter: assuming less feature overlap between contents from different domains than between contents from the same domain, the model can account for double dissociations of content domains in dual-task experiments. Experiment 3 extended this idea to similarity within the verbal domain. The decline of memory accuracy with increasing memory load was steeper with phonologically similar than with dissimilar material, although processing speed was faster for the similar material. The model captured the similarity effects with a higher estimated interference parameter for the similar than for the dissimilar condition. The results are difficult to explain with alternative models, in particular models incorporating time-based decay and models assuming limited resource pools.
Dissociating retention and access in working memory : an age-comparative study of mental arithmetic
(2001)
Saccades to single targets in peripheral vision are typically characterized by an undershoot bias. Putting this bias to a test, Kapoula [1] used a paradigm in which observers were presented with two different sets of target eccentricities that partially overlapped each other. Her data were suggestive of a saccadic range effect (SRE): There was a tendency for saccades to overshoot close targets and undershoot far targets in a block, suggesting that there was a response bias towards the center of eccentricities in a given block. Our Experiment 1 was a close replication of the original study by Kapoula [1]. In addition, we tested whether the SRE is sensitive to top-down requirements associated with the task, and we also varied the target presentation duration. In Experiments 1 and 2, we expected to replicate the SRE for a visual discrimination task. The simple visual saccade-targeting task in Experiment 3, entailing minimal top-down influence, was expected to elicit a weaker SRE. Voluntary saccades to remembered target locations in Experiment 3 were expected to elicit the strongest SRE. Contrary to these predictions, we did not observe a SRE in any of the tasks. Our findings complement the results reported by Gillen et al. [2] who failed to find the effect in a saccade-targeting task with a very brief target presentation. Together, these results suggest that unlike arm movements, saccadic eye movements are not biased towards making saccades of a constant, optimal amplitude for the task.
Binocular eye movements of normal adult readers were examined as they read single sentences. Analyses of horizontal and vertical fixation disparities indicated that the most prevalent type of disparate fixation is crossed (i.e., the left eye is located further to the right than the right eye) while the left eye frequently fixates somewhat above the right eye. The Gaussian distribution of the binocular fixation point peaked 2.6 cm in front of the plane of text, reflecting the prevalence of horizontally crossed fixations. Fixation disparity accumulates during the course of successive saccades and fixations within a line of text, but only to an extent that does not compromise single binocular vision. In reading, the version and vergence system interact in a way that is qualitatively similar to what has been observed in simple nonreading tasks. Finally, results presented here render it unlikely that vergence movements in reading aim at realigning the eyes at a given saccade target word.