This has implications for previous studies that have attempted to investigate the functional role of eye-movements during cognitive tasks by comparing central fixation and free eye-movement conditions (e.g., Godijn and Theeuwes, 2012 and Pearson and Sahraie, 2003). We argue that the absence or constraint of overt eye-movements during a task cannot be taken as indicative of the absence

of any underlying oculomotor involvement in task performance. Again, this has some parallels with the operation of subvocal rehearsal as a maintenance process during verbal working memory: while some people may overtly mutter under their breath learn more or speak out loud while rehearsing a sequence of unfamiliar verbal material, in the majority of cases the rehearsal process is covert rather than explicit (Baddeley, 2003). In summary, previous studies of VSWM have struggled to reliably

decouple the involvement of attentional processes from oculomotor control processes. We propose the present study is the first to unambiguously demonstrate that the oculomotor system contributes to the maintenance of spatial locations in working memory independently from any involvement of covert attention. Across three experiments using an abducted-eye paradigm we have shown that preventing oculomotor preparation during the encoding and maintenance of visually-salient locations in working memory significantly impairs spatial span, but it has no effect if prevented only during recall. We argue these findings provide strong support for the theoretical view Wnt inhibitor that the oculomotor system plays

an important role during spatial working memory. Specifically, we conclude that oculomotor involvement is necessary for participants to optimally maintain a sequence of locations that have been directly indicated by a change in visual salience. This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (RES-000-22-4457). Data are archived in the ESRC Data Store (oai:store.ac.uk:archive:635). We thank Mr. Andrew Long for mechanical assistance. “
“The authors regret that there are three minor errors in the model description. Eq. (4) should read p(ti|r)=α|r|+(1-α)|S|ifticonsistent withr,(1-α)|S|otherwise,Eq. Carnitine palmitoyltransferase II (7) should read p(T|Z)=∏c∑rc∏ti∈Cp(ti|rc)p(rc)and Eq. (8) should read p(E|T)=∏ek∈E∑rj∈Rp(ek|rj)p(rj|T) We have verified that these errors did not substantively affect any numerical or graphical results reported in the paper, and have corrected the linked codebase. “
“The authors regret that the affiliation of the author Carolina Lombardi should be only “h” and not both “h,i”. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. “
“Hauser, M.D., Weiss, D., & Marcus, G. (2002). Rule learning by cotton-top tamarins. Cognition, 86(1), B15–B22. An internal examination at Harvard University of the research reported in “Rule learning by cotton-top tamarins,” Cognition 86 (2002), pp.