ArticlePsychophysiology2026
An Electroencephalographic Investigation of the Impact of Eye Movements in a Memory Probe Task.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatial and Temporal Characteristics of Distractor-Induced Repulsion Effect in Visual Working Memory: A Behavioral and ERP Study.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
- An Electroencephalographic Investigation of the Impact of Eye Movements in a Memory Probe Task.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lateral saccades represent a major source of noise and confounds, particularly for event-related potentials (ERPs) that rely on hemispheric imbalances in neural activity elicited by lateralized stimuli during central fixation. These include lateralized ERPs such as the contralateral delay activity (CDA), which indexes visual working memory (VWM) load. Due to its relatively small amplitude and strict fixation requirement, the CDA is particularly vulnerable to contamination from eye movements, which usually cause the contaminated trial to be discarded. In this context, independent component analysis (ICA) offers an alternative to the traditional epoch rejection method, as it removes ocular artifacts without discarding entire trials. However, ICA's effectiveness may be limited if saccade-related activity is not fully removed, or if trials in which participants directed their foveae toward a lateral target stimulus are retained, leading to bilateral representation. In the present study, we compared the efficacy of ICA and epoch rejection in preserving CDA features when participants were allowed to saccade. Participants were asked to memorize an array composed of a variable number of laterally displayed colored squares. In half of the experiment, participants had to keep their gaze at fixation, whereas they had to saccade toward the memoranda in the other half. The memory array was displayed for either 100 ms or 500 ms to examine how the post-saccade physical availability of the memoranda influenced CDA amplitude and latency. The results showed that ICA correction preserved the quality and defining features of the CDA component as well as, or in some respects better than, epoch rejection. Notably, the post-saccade physical availability of the memoranda affected the latency of the CDA, with shorter offset latency observed when the memoranda were exposed for 500 ms compared to 100 ms, likely reflecting post-saccade retinotopic recoding of the memoranda.
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.