The results also clarify that the observed non-significant trend in Experiment 1 for spatial span to be lower in the 20° eye-abducted condition was specifically associated with the encoding of memoranda, and does not reflect a more general disruption that affects the maintenance and retrieval of presented spatial locations. Critically, the passive manipulation of participants’ head and trunk position took place at the same point in all trials in both Experiments 1 and 2, i.e., immediately
following presentation of the visual and spatial memoranda. The only difference was that participants in Experiment 1 were moved from an abducted to a non-abducted eye-position, while in Experiment 2 the opposite rotation occurred. Overall, Experiment 2 offers strong support for the oculomotor account of VSWM, and the findings are consistent with the view that rehearsal of directly-indicated PD332991 spatial locations in working memory is critically dependent on activity in the eye-movement system. However, as with the results reported by Ball et al. (2013), it remains possible that the disruptive effect of 40° eye-abduction on spatial memory is restricted only to the retrieval stage of the Corsi
task, and is not associated with the maintenance of encoded locations. This possibility was directly examined in Experiment 3. 14 participants took part (6 male, mean age 30.1, SD = 11.1, 6 were right eyed). The design was the same as that of Experiments 1 and 2 with the following exception. In the abducted conditions participants started each trial this website in the frontal condition and at the end of the retention interval they were rotated either 20° or 40° Adenosine to the left or right (depending on eye dominance). This meant that participants encoded and rehearsed the stimuli normally but retrieved the stimuli in the abducted position. For both tasks, after 2500 ms into the retention interval a beep sounded
instructing the experimenter to rotate participants. The total duration between the end of the stimulus presentation and recall was 4000 ms, the same as Experiments 1 and 2. This allowed sufficient time to move the participants. At the end of the 4000 ms rehearsal period participants had to reproduce the pattern in the case of the visual patterns task or recall the sequence in the Corsi Blocks task The results are presented in Fig. 5. 0.83% of CBT trials and 0.68% of visual pattern trials were redone because participants failed to keep fixation. A 2 × 2 × 3 repeated measures ANOVA with the factors Task (Visual, Spatial), Side of Presentation (Temporal, Nasal), and Eye Position (Frontal, Abducted 20, Abducted 40) was performed. A significant main effect of Task was found, F(1,13) = 129.35; p = .000, with memory span being higher in the visual patterns task (M = 7.33, SE = .