P3-E-125 Putting ‘effort’ in a usable way: Using eye ...
1
0.20 pupil change (TEPR) (mm) 0.10 -0.10 -0.20 0 3000 3500 4500 5500 4000 5000 6000 6500 7000 ms 2500 1st card shown 2nd card shown cards face-down pupil change (TEPR) (mm) 0.10 0 -0.10 -0.20 3000 3500 4500 5500 4000 5000 6000 6500 7000 ms 2500 1st card shown cards face-down Putting ‘effort’ in a usable way: Using eye movements and pupillometry to uncover the role of focused attention in Visual Working Memory Chen Cheng, Zsuzsa Kaldy, & Erik Blaser Developmental and Brain Sciences Program, Dept. of Psychology, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA Does the familiarity of the to-be-remembered objects affect their memorability, or the allocation of focused attention? Focused attention / cognitive effort, deployed purposefully, is a critical component of Executive Function, and supports the active processing of information. The integration of memory and attention occurs between 6- to 15-month of age, as a result of the maturation of frontal circuitry (Colombo & Cheatham, 2006). However, the link between focused attention and Visual Working Memory has not been well-studied in infants. Motivation HUMAN VISION LAB Method Conclusions Acknowledgement & References • Infants have better memory for familiar objects. • Focused attention (as indexed by the pupil), during memory encoding, predicted better VWM performance. • Pupillometry is a promising tool to measure focused attention with high temporal resolution in infants. This project was supported by NIH #1R15HD086658. Brady, T. F., Störmer, V. S., & Alvarez, G. A. (2016). PNAS Johnson, E. L., Miller Singley, A. T., Peckham, A. D., Johnson, S. L., & Bunge, S. A. (2014). Frontiers in Psychology Kahneman, D., & Beatty, J. (1966). Science. Kaldy, Z., Guillory, S. B., & Blaser, E. (2016). Developmental Science Unsworth, N., & Robison, M. K. (2015). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(3), 757-765. Dependent measure: first anticipatory saccade to face- down ‘Match’ (correct) vs. ‘Non-match’ (incorrect) card, during the response interval Questions Can focused attention (as indexed by pupillometry) predict VWM performance? 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Proportion correct (based on first looks) Familiar Objects (Exp.1) ** n.s chance (0.5) Results VWM capacity in adults is greater for familiar, real-world objects than for unfamiliar abstract shapes (Brady et al., 2016). Here, instead of abstract shapes we used up-side down versions of the objects (to control low-level information). Participants • 12 trials of Delayed- Match Retrieval (Kaldy, Guillory, & Blaser, 2016). • Min 3 trials had to be completed Stimuli Fly-in 0.5 s Each card revealed for 1.5 s, sequentially After 1 s, Sample is revealed Response 2 s Feedback and reward 1 s Procedure Non-match Match Sample Familiar Objects (Exp 1) Upside Down (Exp 2) Task-evoked pupil responses (TEPRs) pupil change (TEPR) (mm) 0.10 0 -0.10 -0.20 3000 3500 4500 5500 4000 5000 6000 6500 7000 ms 2500 1st card shown cards face-down (b) (a) (c) (d) • 13-month-olds performed significantly above chance in our VWM task, but only when the to- be-remembered objects were familiar (Exp. 1). • In Exp.1, we found a significant correlation (r = 0.52, p =0.018) between infants’ pupil response (TEPR) (at the end of encoding) and their VWM performance. This was not present in Exp. 2 (as performance was at chance). Task evoked pupil dilation during encoding was significantly greater in better-performing kids than lower-performing, and in correct vs opposed incorrect trials. This relationship between focused attention and VWM only held for Familiar (Exp 1), not Upside down, objects (Exp 2). Familiar Objects (Exp.1) Upside Down (Exp.2) Split by group Split by trial Higher attention during encoding has been shown to correlate with phasic pupil diameter (task-evoked pupil responses; TEPRs) and better subsequent WM performance in adults and older children (Kahneman, 1973; Unsworth & Robison, 2015; Johnson et al., 2014), but what about infants? P3-E-125 Below median performance _ _ Above median performance N = 22 M_age = 13.4 months Range = 11- 15 months N = 21 M_age = 13.4 months Range = 11- 15 months 0.20 pupil change (TEPR) (mm) 0.10 -0.10 -0.20 0 3000 3500 4500 5500 4000 5000 6000 6500 7000 ms 2500 1st card shown 2nd card shown cards face-down 0.20 0.20 Exp. 1: Cheng, Kaldy, & Blaser, under review 2nd card shown 2nd card shown Correct trials Incorrect trials _ _ For more info, please contact [email protected] VWM performance Upside Down (Exp.2)
Transcript of P3-E-125 Putting ‘effort’ in a usable way: Using eye ...
0.20
pupi
l cha
nge
(TEP
R)
(mm
)
0.10
-0.10
-0.20
0
3000 3500 4500 55004000 5000 6000 6500 7000 ms2500
1st card shown
2nd card shown
cards face-down
pupi
l cha
nge
(TEP
R)
(mm
)
0.10
0
-0.10
-0.203000 3500 4500 55004000 5000 6000 6500 7000 ms2500
1st card shown
cards face-down
Putting ‘effort’ in a usable way: Using eye movements and pupillometry to uncover the role of focused attention in Visual Working Memory
Chen Cheng, Zsuzsa Kaldy, & Erik BlaserDevelopmental and Brain Sciences Program, Dept. of Psychology, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA
Does the familiarity of the to-be-remembered objects affect their memorability, or the
allocation of focused attention?
Focused attention / cognitive effort, deployed purposefully, is a critical component of Executive Function, and supports the active processing of information.
The integration of memory and attention occurs between 6- to 15-month of age, as a result of the maturation of frontal circuitry (Colombo & Cheatham, 2006).
However, the link between focused attention and Visual Working Memory has not been well-studied in infants.
Motivation
HUMAN VISION LAB
Method
ConclusionsAcknowledgement & References
• Infants have better memory for familiar objects.• Focused attention (as indexed by the pupil), during memory encoding, predicted better
VWM performance.• Pupillometry is a promising tool to measure focused attention with high temporal
resolution in infants.
This project was supported by NIH #1R15HD086658. Brady, T. F., Störmer, V. S., & Alvarez, G. A. (2016). PNASJohnson, E. L., Miller Singley, A. T., Peckham, A. D., Johnson, S. L., & Bunge, S. A. (2014). Frontiers in Psychology Kahneman, D., & Beatty, J. (1966). Science. Kaldy, Z., Guillory, S. B., & Blaser, E. (2016). Developmental Science Unsworth, N., & Robison, M. K. (2015). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(3), 757-765.
Dependent measure: first anticipatory saccade to face-down ‘Match’ (correct) vs. ‘Non-match’ (incorrect) card, during the response interval
Questions
Can focused attention (as indexed by pupillometry) predict VWM performance?
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Prop
ortio
n co
rrec
t (ba
sed
on
first
look
s)
Familiar Objects(Exp.1)
**n.s
chance (0.5)
Results
VWM capacity in adults is greater for familiar, real-world objects than for unfamiliar abstract shapes (Brady et al., 2016). Here, instead of abstract shapes we used up-side down versions of the objects (to control low-level information).
Participants
• 12 trials of Delayed-Match Retrieval (Kaldy, Guillory, & Blaser, 2016).
• Min 3 trials had to be completed
Stimuli
Fly-in 0.5 s Each card revealed for 1.5 s, sequentially
After 1 s, Sample is revealed
Response 2 s Feedback and reward 1 s
Procedure
Non-match Match
SampleFamiliar Objects (Exp 1) Upside Down (Exp 2)
Task-evoked pupil responses (TEPRs)
pupi
l cha
nge
(TEP
R)
(mm
)
0.10
0
-0.10
-0.203000 3500 4500 55004000 5000 6000 6500 7000 ms2500
1st card shown
cards face-down
(b)
(a) (c)
(d)
• 13-month-olds performed significantly above chance in our VWM task, but only when the to-be-remembered objects were familiar (Exp. 1).
• In Exp.1, we found a significant correlation (r = 0.52, p =0.018) between infants’ pupil response (TEPR) (at the end of encoding) and their VWM performance. This was not present in Exp. 2 (as performance was at chance).
Task evoked pupil dilation during encoding was significantly greater in better-performing kids than lower-performing, and in correct vs opposed incorrect trials. This relationship between focused attention and VWM only held for Familiar (Exp 1), not Upside down, objects (Exp 2).
Familiar Objects (Exp.1) Upside Down (Exp.2)
Split
by
grou
pSp
lit b
y tr
ial
Higher attention during encoding has been shown to correlate with phasic pupil diameter (task-evoked pupil responses; TEPRs) and better subsequent WM performance in adul ts and older chi ldren (Kahneman, 1973; Unsworth & Robison, 2015; Johnson et al., 2014), but what about infants?
P3-E-125
Below median performance__ Above median performance
N = 22M_age = 13.4 months
Range = 11- 15 months
N = 21M_age = 13.4 months
Range = 11- 15 months
0.20
pupi
l cha
nge
(TEP
R)
(mm
)
0.10
-0.10
-0.20
0
3000 3500 4500 55004000 5000 6000 6500 7000 ms2500
1st card shown
2nd card shown
cards face-down
0.20 0.20
Exp. 1: Cheng, Kaldy, & Blaser, under review
2nd card shown 2nd card shown
Correct trialsIncorrect trials_
_
For more info, please contact [email protected]
VWM performance
Upside Down(Exp.2)
