Spatial span in Experiment 2 was only significantly

reduced when memoranda were presented to the temporal hemifield and participants were abducted 40o during the maintenance and retrieval stages. In contrast, there was no disruption of spatial span at all for temporally presented stimuli when participants were abducted 40° only during retrieval. On this basis we conclude the disruptive effect of eye-abduction observed in Experiment 2 is specific MK-2206 ic50 to the maintenance of memoranda in spatial working memory, i.e., participants were unable to effectively rehearse directly-indicated spatial locations when eye-movements to the hemifield where the locations were presented were rendered physically impossible. The aim of the selleck screening library present study was to establish the extent

of oculomotor involvement during the encoding, maintenance, and retrieval of visual and spatial memoranda in working memory. This was accomplished across three experiments in which we used an abducted-eye paradigm to restrict participants’ ability to engage in oculomotor preparation at different stages of spatial and visual memory tasks. In all three experiments it was predicted that if performance was critically dependent on the eye-movement system, then a reduction is span should only occur when memoranda were presented in the temporal hemifield of the 40° eye-abducted condition. This is because this was the only old condition in which it was physically impossible for participants to plan or execute saccadic eye-movements to spatial locations in the temporal hemifield. In contrast no significant reduction in span was expected in the Temporal 20° Abducted condition, as in this condition participants were still able to plan saccades to spatial locations presented within the temporal hemifield. In Experiment 1 eye-abduction was applied only during the encoding of memoranda in visual and spatial memory. Spatial span was significantly reduced in the Temporal 40° Abducted condition, which is consistent with oculomotor involvement during spatial encoding. However, there was also a trend for lower span in the

Temporal 20° Abducted condition. Although this trend was not significant, we feel it is evident enough in the data to require us to be more guarded in our interpretation of Experiment 1. If there is oculomotor involvement during the maintenance of spatial locations in working memory (as demonstrated in Experiment 2), it can be expected that participants would first need to encode the locations as the goal of potential eye-movements. The reduction in Corsi span in the Temporal 40° Abducted condition in Experiment 1 is fully consistent with this. However, we acknowledge that encoding during the Corsi Blocks task will also engage nonspatial executive processes (Berch et al., 1998, Parmentier et al., 2005, Pearson, 2007 and Rudkin et al.