Cargando…
Fixation duration surpasses pupil size as a measure of memory load in free viewing
Oculomotor behavior reveals, not only the acquisition of visual information at fixation, but also the accumulation of information in memory across subsequent fixations. Two candidate measures were considered as indicators of such dynamic visual memory load: fixation duration and pupil size. While re...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4301010/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25653606 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.01063 |
_version_ | 1782353598261231616 |
---|---|
author | Meghanathan, Radha Nila van Leeuwen, Cees Nikolaev, Andrey R. |
author_facet | Meghanathan, Radha Nila van Leeuwen, Cees Nikolaev, Andrey R. |
author_sort | Meghanathan, Radha Nila |
collection | PubMed |
description | Oculomotor behavior reveals, not only the acquisition of visual information at fixation, but also the accumulation of information in memory across subsequent fixations. Two candidate measures were considered as indicators of such dynamic visual memory load: fixation duration and pupil size. While recording these measures, we displayed an arrangement of 3, 4 or 5 targets among distractors. Both occurred in various orientations. Participants searched for targets and reported whether in a subsequent display one of them had changed orientation. We determined to what extent fixation duration and pupil size indicate dynamic memory load, as a function of the number of targets fixated during the search. We found that fixation duration reflects the number of targets, both when this number is within and above the limit of working memory capacity. Pupil size reflects the number of targets only when it exceeds the capacity limit. Moreover, the duration of fixations on successive targets but not on distractors increases whereas pupil size does not. The increase in fixation duration with number of targets both within and above working memory capacity suggests that in free viewing fixation duration is sensitive to actual memory load as well as to processing load, whereas pupil size is indicative of processing load only. Two alternative models relating visual attention and working memory are considered relevant to these results. We discuss the results as supportive of a model which involves a temporary buffer in the interaction of attention and working memory. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4301010 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-43010102015-02-04 Fixation duration surpasses pupil size as a measure of memory load in free viewing Meghanathan, Radha Nila van Leeuwen, Cees Nikolaev, Andrey R. Front Hum Neurosci Neuroscience Oculomotor behavior reveals, not only the acquisition of visual information at fixation, but also the accumulation of information in memory across subsequent fixations. Two candidate measures were considered as indicators of such dynamic visual memory load: fixation duration and pupil size. While recording these measures, we displayed an arrangement of 3, 4 or 5 targets among distractors. Both occurred in various orientations. Participants searched for targets and reported whether in a subsequent display one of them had changed orientation. We determined to what extent fixation duration and pupil size indicate dynamic memory load, as a function of the number of targets fixated during the search. We found that fixation duration reflects the number of targets, both when this number is within and above the limit of working memory capacity. Pupil size reflects the number of targets only when it exceeds the capacity limit. Moreover, the duration of fixations on successive targets but not on distractors increases whereas pupil size does not. The increase in fixation duration with number of targets both within and above working memory capacity suggests that in free viewing fixation duration is sensitive to actual memory load as well as to processing load, whereas pupil size is indicative of processing load only. Two alternative models relating visual attention and working memory are considered relevant to these results. We discuss the results as supportive of a model which involves a temporary buffer in the interaction of attention and working memory. Frontiers Media S.A. 2015-01-21 /pmc/articles/PMC4301010/ /pubmed/25653606 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.01063 Text en Copyright © 2015 Meghanathan, van Leeuwen and Nikolaev. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution and reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Neuroscience Meghanathan, Radha Nila van Leeuwen, Cees Nikolaev, Andrey R. Fixation duration surpasses pupil size as a measure of memory load in free viewing |
title | Fixation duration surpasses pupil size as a measure of memory load in free viewing |
title_full | Fixation duration surpasses pupil size as a measure of memory load in free viewing |
title_fullStr | Fixation duration surpasses pupil size as a measure of memory load in free viewing |
title_full_unstemmed | Fixation duration surpasses pupil size as a measure of memory load in free viewing |
title_short | Fixation duration surpasses pupil size as a measure of memory load in free viewing |
title_sort | fixation duration surpasses pupil size as a measure of memory load in free viewing |
topic | Neuroscience |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4301010/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25653606 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.01063 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT meghanathanradhanila fixationdurationsurpassespupilsizeasameasureofmemoryloadinfreeviewing AT vanleeuwencees fixationdurationsurpassespupilsizeasameasureofmemoryloadinfreeviewing AT nikolaevandreyr fixationdurationsurpassespupilsizeasameasureofmemoryloadinfreeviewing |