Fixation duration surpasses pupil size as a measure of memory load in free viewing.

Radha Nila Meghanathan, Cees van Leeuwen, Andrey R Nikolaev
Author Information
  1. Radha Nila Meghanathan: Laboratory for Perceptual Dynamics, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Leuven Leuven, Belgium.
  2. Cees van Leeuwen: Laboratory for Perceptual Dynamics, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Leuven Leuven, Belgium.
  3. Andrey R Nikolaev: Laboratory for Perceptual Dynamics, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Leuven Leuven, Belgium.

Abstract

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.

Keywords

References

  1. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010 Feb;72(2):308-16 [PMID: 20139447]
  2. Spat Vis. 2000;14(1):59-75 [PMID: 11334182]
  3. Psychol Bull. 1982 Mar;91(2):276-92 [PMID: 7071262]
  4. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015 Feb 5;370(1661):20140197 [PMID: 25533105]
  5. Trends Cogn Sci. 2013 Aug;17(8):391-400 [PMID: 23850263]
  6. Nature. 2001 Jul 26;412(6845):401 [PMID: 11473303]
  7. Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Apr;15(2):372-7 [PMID: 18488654]
  8. Psychol Sci. 2001 Jul;12(4):287-92 [PMID: 11476094]
  9. Perception. 2003;32(5):579-92 [PMID: 12854644]
  10. Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Oct;14(5):846-51 [PMID: 18087948]
  11. Psychol Rev. 2007 Jan;114(1):38-70 [PMID: 17227181]
  12. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014 Mar 17;369(1641):20130215 [PMID: 24639586]
  13. Psychol Res. 2008 Jan;72(1):99-105 [PMID: 17021837]
  14. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007 Feb;60(2):211-29 [PMID: 17455055]
  15. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2011 Aug;140(3):488-505 [PMID: 21604913]
  16. Psychol Rev. 1980 Jul;87(4):329-54 [PMID: 7413885]
  17. Psychol Rev. 2012 Oct;119(4):745-69 [PMID: 22823385]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0memorydurationfixationsizetargetsloadpupilnumberworkingvisualcapacityprocessingattentioninformationsubsequentfixationsTwomeasuresconsidereddynamicdistractorssearchreflectswithinlimitwhereasfreeviewingresultsOculomotorbehaviorrevealsacquisitionalsoaccumulationacrosscandidateindicatorsload:recordingdisplayedarrangement345amongoccurredvariousorientationsParticipantssearchedreportedwhetherdisplayonechangedorientationdeterminedextentindicatefunctionfixatedfoundPupilexceedsMoreoversuccessiveincreasesincreasesuggestssensitiveactualwellindicativealternativemodelsrelatingrelevantdiscusssupportivemodelinvolvestemporarybufferinteractionFixationsurpassesmeasureeyemovements

Similar Articles

Cited By