Semantic partitioning facilitates memory for object location through category-partition cueing.

In our lived environments, objects are often semantically organised (e.g., cookware and cutlery are placed close together in the kitchen). Across four experiments, we examined how semantic partitions (that group same-category objects in space) influenced memory for object locations. Participants learned the locations of items in a semantically partitioned display (where each partition contained objects from a single category) as well as a purely visually partitioned display (where each partition contained a scrambled assortment of objects from different categories). Semantic partitions significantly improved location memory accuracy compared to the scrambled display. However, when the correct partition was cued (highlighted) to participants during recall, performance on the semantically partitioned display was similar to the scrambled display. These results suggest that semantic partitions largely benefit memory for location by enhancing the ability to use the given category as a cue for a visually partitioned area (e.g., toys - top left). Our results demonstrate that semantically structured spaces help location memory across partitions, but not items within a partition, providing new insights into the interaction between meaning and memory.

Semantic partitioning facilitates memory for object location through category-partition cueing.

In our lived environments, objects are often semantically organised (e.g., cookware and cutlery are placed close together in the kitchen). Across four experiments, we examined how semantic partitions (that group same-category objects in space) influenced memory for object locations. Participants learned the locations of items in a semantically partitioned display (where each partition contained objects from a single category) as well as a purely visually partitioned display (where each partition contained a scrambled assortment of objects from different categories). Semantic partitions significantly improved location memory accuracy compared to the scrambled display. However, when the correct partition was cued (highlighted) to participants during recall, performance on the semantically partitioned display was similar to the scrambled display. These results suggest that semantic partitions largely benefit memory for location by enhancing the ability to use the given category as a cue for a visually partitioned area (e.g., toys - top left). Our results demonstrate that semantically structured spaces help location memory across partitions, but not items within a partition, providing new insights into the interaction between meaning and memory.

Semantic relatedness can impair memory for item locations.

While memory for semantically related items is improved over unrelated items in many cases, relatedness can also lead to memory costs. Here we examined how the semantic relatedness of words within a display influenced memory for their locations. Participants learned the locations of words inside grid displays; the words in a given display were either from a single category or were from different assorted categories. When a display containing words from a single category was compared to a scrambled display containing words from multiple categories, location memory performance was rendered worse, while word recall performance was significantly improved. Our results suggest that semantically structured spaces can both help and harm memory within the context of a location memory task. We hypothesize that relatedness can improve memory performance by increasing the likelihood that matching candidates will be retrieved, yet might worsen performance that requires distinguishing between similar target representations.

Socially Communicative Eye Contact and Gender Affect Memory.

Because of their value as a socially communicative cue, researchers have strived to understand how the gaze of other people influences a variety of cognitive processes. Recent work in social attention suggests that the use of images of people in laboratory studies, as a substitute for real people, may not effectively test socially communicative aspects of eye gaze. As attention affects many other cognitive processes, it is likely that social attention between real individuals could also affect other cognitive processes, such as memory. However, from previous work alone, it is unclear whether, and if so how, socially communicative eye gaze affects memory. The present studies test the assumption that socially communicative aspects of eye gaze may impact memory by manipulating the eye gaze of a live speaker in the context of a traditional recognition paradigm used frequently in the laboratory. A female (Experiment 1) or male (Experiment 2) investigator read words aloud and varied whether eye contact was, or was not, made with a participant. With both female and male investigators, eye contact improved word recognition only for female participants and hindered word recognition in male participants. When a female investigator prolonged their eye contact (Experiment 3) to provide a longer opportunity to both observe and process the investigator's eye gaze, the results replicated the findings from Experiments 1 and 2. The findings from Experiments 1-3 suggest that females interpret and use the investigator's eye gaze differently than males. When key aspects from the previous experiments were replicated in a noncommunicative situation (i.e., when a video of a speaker is used instead of a live speaker; Experiment 4), the memory effects observed previously in response to eye gaze were eliminated. Together, these studies suggest that it is the socially communicative aspects of eye gaze from a real person that influence memory. The findings reveal the importance of using social cues that are communicative in nature (e.g., real people) when studying the relationship between social attention and memory.

Looking away: distractor influences on saccadic trajectory and endpoint in prosaccade and antisaccade tasks.

Successful target selection often occurs concurrently with distractor inhibition. A better understanding of the former thus requires a thorough study of the competition that arises between target and distractor representations. In the present study, we explore whether the presence of a distractor influences saccade processing via interfering with visual target and/or saccade goal representations. To do this, we asked participants to make either pro- or antisaccade eye movements to a target and measured the change in their saccade trajectory and landing position (collectively referred to as deviation) in response to distractors placed near or far from the saccade goal. The use of an antisaccade paradigm may help to distinguish between stimulus- and goal-related distractor interference, as unlike with prosaccades, these two features are dissociated in space when making a goal-directed antisaccade response away from a visual target stimulus. The present results demonstrate that for both pro- and antisaccades, distractors near the saccade goal elicited the strongest competition, as indicated by greater saccade trajectory deviation and landing position error. Though distractors far from the saccade goal elicited, on average, greater deviation away in antisaccades than in prosaccades, a time-course analysis revealed a significant effect of far-from-goal distractors in prosaccades as well. Considered together, the present findings support the view that goal-related representations most strongly influence the saccade metrics tested, though stimulus-related representations may play a smaller role in determining distractor-based interference effects on saccade execution under certain circumstances. Further, the results highlight the advantage of considering temporal changes in distractor-based interference.

Spatial habit competes with effort to determine human spatial organization.

Despite the important role that the physical environment plays in shaping human cognition, few studies have endeavoured to experimentally examine the principles underlying how individuals organize objects in their space. The current investigation examines the idea that humans organize objects in their space in order to minimize effort or maximize performance. We devised a novel spatial organization task whereby participants freely arranged objects in the context of a writing task. Critically, we manipulated the frequency with which each object was used and assessed participants' spontaneous placements. In the first set of experiments, participants showed a counterintuitive tendency to match pen pairs with their initial placements rather than placing pens in the less effortful configuration. However, in Experiment 2, where the difference in physical effort between different locations was increased, participants were more likely to reorganize the pens into the less effortful configuration. We begin developing a theory of human spatial organization wherein the observed initial bias may represent a kind of spatial habit formation that competes with effort/performance considerations to shape future spatial organization.

A fresh look at saccadic trajectories and task irrelevant stimuli: Social relevance matters.

A distractor placed nearby a saccade target will cause interference during saccade planning and execution, and as a result will cause the saccade's trajectory to curve in a systematic way. It has been demonstrated that making a distractor more task-relevant, for example by increasing its similarity to the target, will increase the interference it imposes on the saccade and generate more deviant saccadic trajectories. Is the extent of a distractor's interference within the oculomotor system limited to its relevance to a particular current task, or can a distractor's general real-world meaning influence saccade trajectories even when it is made irrelevant within a task? Here, it is tested whether a task-irrelevant distractor can influence saccade trajectory if it depicts a stimulus that is normally socially relevant. Participants made saccades to a target object while also presented with a task-irrelevant (upright or inverted) face, or scrambled non-face equivalent. Results reveal that a distracting face creates greater deviation in saccade trajectory than does a non-face distractor, most notably at longer saccadic reaction times. These results demonstrate the sensitivity of processing that distractors are afforded by the oculomotor system, and support the view that distractor relevance beyond the task itself can also influence saccade planning and execution.