Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Koevoet, D.

Publications and source records attributed to Koevoet, D..

2 recordsLinked to original sources
bioRxiv2024

Effort Drives Saccade Selection

What determines where to move the eyes? We recently showed that pupil size, a well-established marker of effort, also reflects the effort associated with making a saccade (saccade costs). Here we demonstrate saccade costs to critically drive saccade selection: when choosing between any two saccade directions, the least costly direction was consistently preferred. Strikingly, this principle even held during search in natural scenes in two additional experiments. When increasing cognitive demand experimentally through an auditory counting task, participants made fewer saccades and especially cut costly directions. This suggests that the eye-movement system and other cognitive operations consume similar resources that are flexibly allocated among each other as cognitive demand changes. Together, we argue that eye-movement behavior is tuned to adaptively minimize saccade-inherent effort.

neuroscience↗
bioRxiv2024

Sensory Input Matching Visual Working Memory Guides Internal Prioritization

Adaptive behavior necessitates the prioritization of the most relevant information in the environment (external) and in memory (internal). Internal prioritization is known to guide the selection of external sensory input, but the reverse may also be possible: Does the environment guide the prioritization of memorized material? Here we addressed whether reappearing sensory input can facilitate the prioritization of other non-reappearing memorized items held in visual working memory (VWM). Participants (total n = 96) memorized three orientations. Crucially some, but not all, items maintained in VWM were made available again in the environment. These reappearing items never had to be reproduced later. Experiment 1 showed that the reappearance of all but one memory item benefited accuracy and speed to the same extent as a spatial retro cue. This shows that reappearing items allow for the dynamic prioritization of another non-reappearing memorized item. What aspects of the reappearing sensory input drive this effect? Experiments 2-4 demonstrated that prioritization was facilitated most if reappearing items matched VWM content in terms of both location and orientation. Sensory input fully matching VWM is possibly processed more efficiently and/or protects against interference, ultimately leading to stronger prioritization of other memory content. We propose that the link between sensory processing and VWM is bidirectional: internal representations guide the processing of sensory input, which in turn facilitates the prioritization of other VWM content to subserve adaptive behavior. All data and analysis scripts are available here: https://osf.io/qzvkc/.

neuroscience↗