ArticlePeerJ2019
Maintaining fixation does not increase demands on working memory relative to free viewing.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of eye movements during autobiographical recall: Does the mind's eye look at pictures of personal memories?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Pooled it
- Effective connectivity between the medial temporal lobes and early visual cortex modulated by unrestricted viewing predicts memory retrieval and gaze reinstatement.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Eye movements support behavioral pattern completion.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
- Restricting Visual Exploration Directly Impedes Neural Activity, Functional Connectivity, and Memory.Cerebral cortex communications · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The comparison of memory performance during free and fixed viewing conditions has been used to demonstrate the involvement of eye movements in memory encoding and retrieval, with stronger effects at encoding than retrieval. Relative to conditions of free viewing, participants generally show reduced memory performance following sustained fixation, suggesting that unrestricted eye movements benefit memory. However, the cognitive basis of the memory reduction during fixed viewing is uncertain, with possible mechanisms including disruption of visual-mnemonic and/or imagery processes with sustained fixation, or greater working memory demands required for fixed relative to free viewing. To investigate one possible mechanism for this reduction, we had participants perform a working memory task-an auditory n-back task-during free and fixed viewing, as well as a repetitive finger tapping condition, included to isolate the effects of motor interference independent of the oculomotor system. As expected, finger tapping significantly interfered with n-back performance relative to free viewing, as indexed by a decrease in accuracy and increase in response times. By contrast, there was no evidence that fixed viewing interfered with n-back performance relative to free viewing. Our findings failed to support a hypothesis of increased working memory load during fixation. They are consistent with the notion that fixation disrupts long-term memory performance through interference with visual processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.