Priorities for representation: Task settings and object interaction both influence object memory.

Following an active task, the memory representations for used and unused objects are different. However, it is not clear whether these differences arise due to prioritizing objects that are task-relevant, objects that are physically interacted with, or a combination of the two factors. The present study allowed us to tease apart the relative importance of task-relevance and physical manipulation on object memory. A paradigm was designed in which objects were either necessary to complete a task (target), moved out of the way (obstructing, but interacted with), or simply present in the environment (background). Participants' eye movements were recorded with a portable tracker during the task, and they received a memory test on the objects after the task was completed. Results showed that manipulating an object is sufficient to change how information is extracted and retained from fixations, compared to background objects. Task-relevance provides an additional influence: information is accumulated and retained differently for manipulated target objects than manipulated obstructing objects. These findings demonstrate that object memory is influenced both by whether we physically interact with an object, and the relevance of that object to our behavioral goals.

Priorities for selection and representation in natural tasks.

Selecting and remembering visual information is an active and competitive process. In natural environments, representations are tightly coupled to task. Objects that are task-relevant are remembered better due to a combination of increased selection for fixation and strategic control of encoding and/or retaining viewed information. However, it is not understood how physically manipulating objects when performing a natural task influences priorities for selection and memory. In this study, we compare priorities for selection and memory when actively engaged in a natural task with first-person observation of the same object manipulations. Results suggest that active manipulation of a task-relevant object results in a specific prioritization for object position information compared with other properties and compared with action observation of the same manipulations. Experiment 2 confirms that this spatial prioritization is likely to arise from manipulation rather than differences in spatial representation in real environments and the movies used for action observation. Thus, our findings imply that physical manipulation of task relevant objects results in a specific prioritization of spatial information about task-relevant objects, possibly coupled with strategic de-prioritization of colour memory for irrelevant objects.