Do object refixations during scene viewing indicate rehearsal in visual working memory?

Zelinsky, Gregory J.; Loschky, Lester C.; Dickinson, Christopher A.

doi:10.3758/s13421-010-0048-x

Cited by 34 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is possible that task demands in the current study may have altered return saccade probability; the need to remember the objects and words in the arrays may have increased the likelihood of making return saccades (cf. Zelinsky et al, 2011), and that fewer return saccades would have been observed in a visual search task where distractor objects do not need to be committed to memory. Even so, any spatial effects of O-IOR should have been detectable in the current study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Temporal oculomotor inhibition of return and spatial facilitation of return in a visual encoding task

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oculomotor inhibition of return (O-IOR) is an increase in saccade latency prior to an eye movement to a recently fixated location compared to other locations. It has been proposed that this temporal O-IOR may have spatial consequences, facilitating foraging by inhibiting return to previously attended regions. In order to test this possibility, participants viewed arrays of objects and of words while their eye movements were recorded. Temporal O-IOR was observed, with equivalent effects for object and word arrays, indicating that temporal O-IOR is an oculomotor phenomenon independent of array content. There was no evidence for spatial inhibition of return (IOR). Instead, spatial facilitation of return was observed: participants were significantly more likely than chance to make return saccades and to re-fixate just-visited locations. Further, the likelihood of making a return saccade to an object or word was contingent on the amount of time spent viewing that object or word before leaving it. This suggests that, unlike temporal O-IOR, return probability is influenced by cognitive processing. Taken together, these results are inconsistent with the hypothesis that IOR functions as a foraging facilitator. The results also provide strong evidence for a different oculomotor bias that could serve as a foraging facilitator: saccadic momentum, a tendency to repeat the most recently executed saccade program. We suggest that models of visual attention could incorporate saccadic momentum in place of IOR.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Temporal oculomotor inhibition of return and spatial facilitation of return in a visual encoding task

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, if return saccades serve as a rehearsal function (e.g., Zelinsky, Loschky, & Dickinson, 2011), then tasks requiring more rehearsal (e.g., memorization) would need a mechanism for making trial-to-trial adjustments to gaze control settings, raising and lowering the criterion to execute a return saccade as warranted by task goals. Implementing such adjustments, however, may be effortful or time consuming and thus may have deleterious effects on performance in switch trials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of task and task-switching on temporal inhibition of return, facilitation of return, and saccadic momentum during scene viewing.

Mills¹,

Dalmaijer²,

Stigchel³

et al. 2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During scene viewing, saccades directed toward a recently fixated location tend to be delayed relative to saccades in other directions (“delay effect”), an effect attributable to inhibition-of-return (IOR) and/or saccadic momentum (SM). Previous work indicates this effect may be task-specific, suggesting that gaze control parameters are task-relevant and potentially affected by task-switching. Accordingly, the present study investigated task-set control of gaze behavior using the delay effect as a measure of task performance. The delay effect was measured as the effect of relative saccade direction on preceding fixation duration. Participants were cued on each trial to perform either a search, memory, or rating task. Tasks were performed either in pure-task or mixed-task blocks. This design allowed separation of switch-cost and mixing-cost. The critical result was that expression of the delay effect at 2-back locations was reversed on switch versus repeat trials such that return was delayed in repeat trials but speeded in switch trials. This difference between repeat and switch trials suggests that gaze-relevant parameters may be represented and switched as part of a task-set. Existing and new tests for dissociating IOR and SM accounts of the delay effect converged on the conclusion that the delay at 2-back locations was due to SM, and that task-switching affects SM. Additionally, the new test simultaneously replicated non-corroborating results in the literature regarding facilitation-of-return (FOR), which confirmed its existence and showed that FOR is “reversed” SM that occurs when preceding and current saccades are both directed toward the 2-back location.

show abstract

“…And refixation of an object would most likely reflect failure to retain that object robustly in VWM, generating the need to resample the original stimulus. However, such a process could certainly operate in a manner that was functionally similar to a rehearsal mechanism, enabling the sustained, active maintenance of task relevant objects (Zelinsky et al, 2011). Perceptual resampling is particularly applicable within vision, because the visual scene often remains available throughout an extended event (Ballard et al, 1995; O’Regan, 1992), in contrast with auditory-linguistic stimuli that are typically available for only a short duration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The strategic retention of task-relevant objects in visual working memory.

Maxcey-Richard

Hollingworth

2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The serial and spatially extended nature of many real-world visual tasks suggests the need for control over the content of VWM. We examined the management of VWM in a task that required participants to prioritize individual objects for retention during scene viewing. There were five principal findings: 1) Strategic retention of task relevant-objects was effective and was dissociable from the current locus of visual attention; 2) strategic retention was implemented by protection from interference rather than by preferential encoding; 3) this prioritization was flexibly transferred to a new object as task demands changed; 4) no-longer-relevant items were efficiently eliminated from VWM; and 5) despite this level of control, attended and fixated objects were consolidated into VWM regardless of task relevance. These results are consistent with a model of VWM control in which each fixated object is automatically encoded into VWM, replacing a portion of the content in VWM. However, task-relevant objects can be selectively protected from replacement.

show abstract

Do object refixations during scene viewing indicate rehearsal in visual working memory?

Cited by 34 publications

References 60 publications

Temporal oculomotor inhibition of return and spatial facilitation of return in a visual encoding task

Temporal oculomotor inhibition of return and spatial facilitation of return in a visual encoding task

Effects of task and task-switching on temporal inhibition of return, facilitation of return, and saccadic momentum during scene viewing.

The strategic retention of task-relevant objects in visual working memory.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About