If the trend for lower span in the Abducted 20° condition is spec

If the trend for lower span in the Abducted 20° condition is specifically linked to demands imposed by the initial encoding of spatial memoranda, then it should not be observed when the abduction occurs only during the maintenance and retrieval periods of spatial memory. This issue is addressed further in Experiments 2 and 3. The focus of Experiment 2 was to examine the effect of eye-abduction on the maintenance this website of visual and spatial memoranda in working memory. While establishing the procedure we initially considered applying the eye-abduction position only during the retention interval of the visual and spatial memory tasks. This would have required participants’ encoding memoranda

in the Frontal Eye Position, then being rotated to either the 40° or 20° Abducted position for the retention interval, and finally being rotated back to a Frontal Eye Position for memory retrieval. However, a consequence of this procedure was that participants in Experiment 2 would be exposed to two head and truck rotations per trial, in comparison to only one rotation

per trial in Experiment 1 (eye-abduction during encoding) and Experiment 3 (eye-abduction during retrieval). This procedure would therefore prevent direct comparisons across the three experiments, particularly considering the Proteases inhibitor non-significant trend observed in Experiment 1 for lower Corsi span even with the 20° Eye-Abducted condition following a single rotation. In response to this concern we decided in Experiment 2 to apply eye-abduction to both maintenance and retrieval stages of the memory tasks. This was accomplished by having participants encode memoranda in the non-abducted Frontal position at the beginning of each trial, then immediately following presentation their trunk and head where rotated to either the 40° and 20° Abducted position for the remaining maintenance and retrieval stages of the trial. This ensured Experiment 2 remained comparable with the design of Experiments 1 and 3, as the procedure was a direct reversal of how eye-abduction had previously been applied in Experiment 1.

Furthermore, comparison between Experiment 2 (eye-abduction during maintenance and retrieval) and Experiment learn more 3 (eye-abduction during retrieval only) would enable the effect of abduction specifically on maintenance to be established without introducing any disparity in the number of head and trunk rotations per trial. 14 Participants took part in this experiment (5 male, mean age 21.7, SD = 2.4, 10 were right eyed). For both the visual patterns and Corsi Blocks tasks the trial procedure was the same as Experiment 1 with one exception. In the abducted conditions participants started in the frontal position. At the offset of the stimuli, a beep sounded instructing the experimenter to put participants in the abducted position by rotating the chair and chin rest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>