4.2 Article

Working memory control predicts fixation duration in scene-viewing

Journal

PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH-PSYCHOLOGISCHE FORSCHUNG
Volume 87, Issue 4, Pages 1143-1154

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-022-01694-8

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

When viewing scenes, observers differ in how long they linger at each fixation location and how far they move their eyes between fixations. This study found a significant relationship between memory updating ability and fixation duration, while fluid intelligence and working memory capacity had no effect on eye movement behavior.
When viewing scenes, observers differ in how long they linger at each fixation location and how far they move their eyes between fixations. What factors drive these differences in eye-movement behaviors? Previous work suggests individual differences in working memory capacity may influence fixation durations and saccade amplitudes. In the present study, participants (N = 98) performed two scene-viewing tasks, aesthetic judgment and memorization, while viewing 100 photographs of real-world scenes. Working memory capacity, working memory processing ability, and fluid intelligence were assessed with an operation span task, a memory updating task, and Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices, respectively. Across participants, we found significant effects of task on both fixation durations and saccade amplitudes. At the level of each individual participant, we also found a significant relationship between memory updating task performance and participants' fixation duration distributions. However, we found no effect of fluid intelligence and no effect of working memory capacity on fixation duration or saccade amplitude distributions, inconsistent with previous findings. These results suggest that the ability to flexibly maintain and update working memory is strongly related to fixation duration behavior.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available