bioRxiv2024
Previous work has suggested that small directional eye movements not only reveal the focus of external spatial attention towards visible stimuli, but also accompany shifts of internal attention to stimuli in visual working memory (VWM)(van Ede et al., 2019). When the orientations of two bars are memorized and a subsequent retro-cue indicates which orientation needs to be reported, participants gaze is systematically biased towards the former location of the cued item (Figure 1AB). This finding was interpreted as evidence that the oculomotor system indexes internal attention; that is, attention directed at the location of stimuli that are no longer presented but are maintained in VWM. Importantly, as the location of the bars is presumably not relevant to the memory report, the authors concluded that orientation features in VWM are automatically associated with locations, suggesting that VWM is inherently spatially organized. This conclusion depends on the key assumption that participants indeed memorize and subsequently attend orientation features. Here we re-analyse Experiment 1 by van Ede et al. (2019) and demonstrate that this assumption does not hold. Instead of memorizing orientation features, participants deployed an alternative spatial strategy by memorizing bar endpoints. Although we do not call into question the conclusion that internal attention is inherently spatially organized, our results do imply that directional gaze biases might also reflect attention directed at task-relevant stimulus endpoints, rather than internal attention directed at memorized orientations. O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=161 SRC="FIGDIR/small/610231v2_fig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1"> View larger version (43K): org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@940e51org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@37ec3dorg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@176b186org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@180e8a7_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG O_FLOATNOFigure 1.C_FLOATNO Gaze density maps from Experiment 1 by van Ede et al. (2019) (N = 23, trials included = 20.864, 400 to 1000 ms). AB. Original reported effect of cued item location on gaze bias. Calculated by subtracting cued-item-left and cued-item-right gaze density maps. Rectangles indicate used stimulus positions and orientation ranges (min: 20{degrees}, mean: 45{degrees}, max: 70{degrees}; min: 110{degrees}, mean: 135{degrees}, max: 160{degrees}) of bar stimuli. C. Normalized Gaze bias vectors per condition (red dotted lines), horizontal vectors (dotted black lines) and average vectors pointing towards most foveal bar endpoints (solid black lines). Gaze bias vector endpoints were calculated from the centre of mass of each condition, ignoring negative values. Circular t-tests revealed that individual gaze bias vector angles (red dotted lines) were significantly different from horizontal vectors (dotted black lines) but not significantly different from endpoint vectors (solid black lines). FI. Vertical gaze bias revealed by separating trials based on bar orientations. Red dotted lines depict group average gaze bias vectors. F. Both bar endpoints "upwards" (left: 20{degrees} to 70{degrees} right: 110{degrees} to 160{degrees}) minus both bars endpoints "downwards" (left: 110{degrees} to 160{degrees}, right: 20{degrees} to 70{degrees}). I. Both "downwards" minus both "upwards". DEGH. Individual gaze density maps for each attention (left versus right) and bar endpoint direction (upwards versus downwards) separately. Solid black Lines show average vector pointing towards closest 45{degrees}/135{degrees} bar endpoint (i.e., average optimal gaze location for solving the memory task through memory maintenance of a spatial location). Red dotted lines depict group average gaze bias vectors (calculated from the centre of mass of each condition, ignoring negative values). C_FIG