English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

To interact successfully with objects, we must maintain stable representations of their locations in the world. However, their images on the retina may be displaced several times per second by large, rapid eye movements. A number of studies have demonstrated that visual processing is heavily influenced by gaze-centered (retinotopic) information, including a recent finding that memory for an object's location is more accurate and precise in gaze-centered (retinotopic) than world-centered (spatiotopic) coordinates (Golomb &amp; Kanwisher, 2012b). This effect is somewhat surprising, given our intuition that behavior is successfully guided by spatiotopic representations. In the present experiment, we asked whether the visual system may rely on a more spatiotopic memory store depending on the mode of responding. Specifically, we tested whether reaching toward and tapping directly on an object's location could improve memory for its spatiotopic location. Participants performed a spatial working memory task under four conditions: retinotopic vs. spatiotopic task, and computer mouse click vs. touchscreen reaching response. When participants responded by clicking with a mouse on the screen, we replicated Golomb &amp; Kanwisher's original results, finding that memory was more accurate in retinotopic than spatiotopic coordinates and that the accuracy of spatiotopic memory deteriorated substantially more than retinotopic memory with additional eye movements during the memory delay. Critically, we found the same pattern of results when participants responded by using their finger to reach and tap the remembered location on the monitor. These results further support the hypothesis that spatial memory is natively retinotopic; we found no evidence that engaging the motor system improves spatiotopic memory across saccades.

Memory for retinotopic locations is more accurate than memory for spatiotopic locations, even for visually guided reaching