Do object refixations during scene viewing indicate rehearsal in visual working memory?
Do refixations serve a rehearsal function in visual working memory (VWM)? We analyzed refixations from observers freely viewing multiobject scenes. An eyetracker was used to limit the viewing of a scene to a specified number of objects fixated after the target (intervening objects), followed by a four-alternative forced choice recognition test. Results showed that the probability of target refixation increased with the number of fixated intervening objects, and these refixations produced a 16% accuracy benefit over the first five intervening-object conditions. Additionally, refixations most frequently occurred after fixations on only one to two other objects, regardless of the intervening-object condition. These behaviors could not be explained by random or minimally constrained computational models; a VWM component was required to completely describe these data. We explain these findings in terms of a monitor-refixate rehearsal system: The activations of object representations in VWM are monitored, with refixations occurring when these activations decrease suddenly.
Department of Psychology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-2500, USA. Gregory.Zelinsky@stonybrook.edu
Gregory J
GJ
Zelinsky
Lester C
LC
Loschky
Christopher A
CA
Dickinson
D001288:Attention; D003118:Color Perception; D005403:Fixation, Ocular; D006801:Humans; D033182:Intention; D008570:Memory, Short-Term; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D011214:Practice, Psychological; D021641:Recognition, Psychology; D013028:Space Perception
Vision Res. 2006 Jan;46(1-2):216-27
16169036
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2002 Jun;8(2):99-117
12075694
Vision Res. 2003 Apr;43(9):1027-34
12676245
Percept Psychophys. 2005 May;67(4):676-90
16134461
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Dec;33(6):1352-65
18085948
Curr Biol. 2000 Oct 5;10(19):1209-12
11050390
Vision Res. 2002 Aug;42(17):2089-93
12169428
Psychol Res. 2001 Nov;65(4):235-41
11789427
Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Oct;14(5):846-51
18087948
Vision Res. 1990;30(11):1845-64
2288094
Psychol Sci. 2001 Jul;12(4):287-92
11476094
Percept Psychophys. 1999 Jul;61(5):919-34
10499004
Psychol Bull. 1998 Nov;124(3):372-422
9849112
Psychol Rev. 2009 Jan;116(1):157-86
19159152
Percept Psychophys. 2002 Aug;64(6):882-95
12269296
Psychol Rev. 1965 Mar;72:89-104
14282677
Psychol Bull. 1978 May;85(3):618-60
353867
Vision Res. 1998 Jan;38(1):125-37
9474383
J Cogn Neurosci. 1997 Jan;9(1):27-38
23968178
Cogn Psychol. 1991 Jul;23(3):420-56
1884598
Percept Psychophys. 2001 Feb;63(2):209-25
11281097
Nature. 1988 Aug 4;334(6181):430-1
3405288
Psychon Bull Rev. 2001 Dec;8(4):753-60
11848596
Percept Psychophys. 2005 Apr;67(3):495-512
16119397
Spat Vis. 1997;11(2):157-78
9428094
Vision Res. 2007 Jun;47(13):1745-55
17482657
Spat Vis. 1996;10(3):165-88
9061830
Vision Res. 2006 Oct;46(22):3831-44
16938331
Q J Exp Psychol A. 1988 Nov;40(4):693-718
3212210
Mem Cognit. 2007 Oct;35(7):1664-74
18062544
Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Jun;13(3):452-7
17048730
Vision Res. 1999 Apr;39(8):1567-75
10343822
Vision Res. 1998 Apr;38(7):1007-22
9666983
Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Dec;12(6):1120-6
16615338
Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Oct;11(5):854-61
15732694
J Cogn Neurosci. 1995 Winter;7(1):66-80
23961754