Of “what” and “where” in a natural search task: Active object handling supports object location memory beyond the object’s identity

Looking for as well as actively manipulating objects that are relevant to ongoing behavioral goals are intricate parts of natural behavior. It is, however, not clear to what degree these two forms of interaction with our visual environment differ with regard to their memory representations. In a real-world paradigm, we investigated if physically engaging with objects as part of a search task influences identity and position memory differently for task-relevant versus irrelevant objects. Participants equipped with a mobile eye tracker either searched for cued objects without object interaction (Find condition) or actively collected the objects they found (Handle condition). In the following free-recall task, identity memory was assessed, demonstrating superior memory for relevant compared to irrelevant objects, but no difference between the Handle and Find conditions. Subsequently, location memory was inferred via times to first fixation in a final object search task. Active object manipulation and task-relevance interacted in that location memory for relevant objects was superior to irrelevant ones only in the Handle condition. Including previous object recall performance as a covariate in the linear mixed-model analysis of times to first fixation allowed us to explore the interaction between remembered/forgotten object identities and the execution of location memory. Identity memory performance predicted location memory in the Find but not the Handle condition, suggesting that active object handling leads to strong spatial representations independent of object identity memory. We argue that object handling facilitates the prioritization of relevant location information, but this might come at the cost of deprioritizing irrelevant information.

[1]  A. Hollingworth Scene and position specificity in visual memory for objects. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[2]  T Vilis,et al.  “Active” and “passive” learning of three-dimensional object structure within an immersive virtual reality environment , 2002, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[3]  Interacting with objects compresses environmental representations in spatial memory , 2013, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[4]  B. Tatler,et al.  Priorities for representation: Task settings and object interaction both influence object memory , 2015, Memory & Cognition.

[5]  D. Ballard,et al.  Modeling Task Control of Eye Movements , 2014, Current Biology.

[6]  J. Henderson,et al.  Accurate visual memory for previously attended objects in natural scenes , 2002 .

[7]  J. Henderson,et al.  Accurate visual memory for previously attended objects in natural scenes , 2002 .

[8]  Alan Kennedy,et al.  Priorities for selection and representation in natural tasks , 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[9]  J. Henderson Human gaze control during real-world scene perception , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[10]  M. Võ,et al.  Transsaccadic Scene Memory Revisited: A 'Theory of Visual Attention (TVA)' Based Approach to Recognition Memory and Confidence for Objects in Naturalistic Scenes. , 2008 .

[11]  Mary M Hayhoe,et al.  Visual memory and motor planning in a natural task. , 2003, Journal of vision.

[12]  D. Ballard,et al.  Eye guidance in natural vision: reinterpreting salience. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[13]  J. Wolfe,et al.  When does repeated search in scenes involve memory? Looking at versus looking for objects in scenes. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  P. König,et al.  Where's the action? The pragmatic turn in cognitive science , 2013, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[15]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Seek and you shall remember: scene semantics interact with visual search to build better memories. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[16]  D. Bates,et al.  Parsimonious Mixed Models , 2015, 1506.04967.

[17]  A. Hollingworth Task specificity and the influence of memory on visual search: comment on Võ and Wolfe (2012). , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  M. Hayhoe,et al.  In what ways do eye movements contribute to everyday activities? , 2001, Vision Research.

[19]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Experimental Effects and Individual Differences in Linear Mixed Models: Estimating the Relationship between Spatial, Object, and Attraction Effects in Visual Attention , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[20]  J. Henderson,et al.  Incidental visual memory for objects in scenes , 2005 .

[21]  J. Flanagan,et al.  Integrating actions into object location memory: A benefit for active versus passive reaching movements , 2015, Behavioural Brain Research.

[22]  Ingrid R Olson,et al.  Remembering “what” brings along “where” in visual working memory , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[23]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[24]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[25]  Michael A. Riley,et al.  Discovering your inner Gibson: Reconciling action-specific and ecological approaches to perception–action , 2014, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[26]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[27]  Michael L. Mack,et al.  Viewing task influences eye movement control during active scene perception. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[28]  M. Goodale,et al.  Active manual control of object views facilitates visual recognition , 1999, Current Biology.

[29]  Iain D Gilchrist,et al.  Visual Memory for Objects in Natural Scenes: From Fixations to Object Files , 2005, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[30]  E. Reed The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1989 .

[31]  J. Henderson Regarding Scenes , 2007 .

[32]  E. A. Attree,et al.  The specificity of memory enhancement during interaction with a virtual environment. , 1999, Memory.

[33]  Benjamin W Tatler,et al.  The influence of instructions on object memory in a real-world setting. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[34]  J. Henderson,et al.  Does gravity matter? Effects of semantic and syntactic inconsistencies on the allocation of attention during scene perception. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[35]  J. Witt Action’s Effect on Perception , 2011 .

[36]  Mary Hayhoe,et al.  Eye Movements, Visual Search and Scene Memory, in an Immersive Virtual Environment , 2014, PloS one.

[37]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[38]  A. Clark An embodied cognitive science? , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[39]  M. McGann Enactive Theorists Do It On Purpose:On why the enactive approach demands an account of goals and goal-directedness. , 2007 .

[40]  J. Wolfe,et al.  The role of memory for visual search in scenes , 2015, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[41]  D. Bates,et al.  Linear Mixed-Effects Models using 'Eigen' and S4 , 2015 .

[42]  Carrick C. Williams Not all visual memories are created equal , 2010 .