Search

Recent research has shown that saccadic eye movements interfere with dorsal-stream tasks such as judgments of object orientation, but not with ventral-stream tasks such as object recognition. Because saccade programming and execution also rely on the dorsal stream, it has been hypothesized that cognitive saccadic suppression occurs as a result of dual-task interference within the dorsal stream. Judging whether one number is larger or smaller than another (magnitude comparison) is a dorsal-stream task that relies especially on the right parietal cortex. In contrast, judging whether a number is odd or even (parity judgment) does not involve the dorsal stream. In the present study, one group of subjects judged whether two-digit numbers were greater than or less than 65, whereas another group judged whether two-digit numbers were odd or even. Subjects in both groups made these judgments while making no, short, or long saccades. Saccade distance had no effect on parity judgments, but reaction times to make magnitude comparison judgments increased with saccade distance when the eyes moved from right to left. Because the right parietal cortex is instrumental in generating leftward saccades, these results provide further evidence for the hypothesis that cognitive suppression during saccades occurs as a result of dual-task interference within the dorsal stream. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the present research, we investigated whether eyeblinks interfere with cognitive processing. In Experiment 1, the participants performed a partial-report iconic memory task in which a letter array was presented for 106 msec, followed 50, 150, or 750 msec later by a tone that cued recall of one row of the array. at a cue delay of 50 msec between array offset and cue onset, letter report accuracy was lower when the participants blinked following array presentation than under no-blink conditions; the participants made more mislocation errors under blink conditions. This result suggests that blinking interferes with the binding of object identity and object position in iconic memory. Experiment 2 demonstrated that interference due to blinks was not due merely to changes in light intensity. Experiments 3 and 4 demonstrated that other motor responses did not interfere with iconic memory. we propose a new phenomenon, cognitive blink suppression, in which blinking inhibits cognitive processing. This phenomenon may be due to neural interference. Blinks reduce activation in area V1, which may interfere with the representation of information in iconic memory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]