TEAM 7 Cognitive Science Nevil Abraham Rachana Balasubramanian

TEAM 7: Cognitive Science Nevil Abraham, Rachana Balasubramanian, Grace Chen, Saavan Chintalacheruvu, Rajeshwari Enjeti, Cynthia Guo, Bum Shik Kim, Kang Woo Kim, Emma Leeds, Jessica Mui, Ellen Wu, Rong Xiang

Background ● Fixation o Fixation Duration ● Saccade ● Dynamic loop between visual input and cognition

Table of Contents 1. Line spacing 2. PSA 3. Lying 4. Antisaccade

1. The Effects of Line Spacing on Eye Movements and Comprehension Ellen Wu and Rong Xiang

Introduction Hypothesis: Increasing line spacing results in increased fixation duration and thus, increased reading comprehension.

Experimental Design Read 40 s Questions 40 s Break 15 s Break (15 seconds)

Experimental Design Group 1 A 1 B 2 C 1 Group 2 A 2 B 1 C 2

Comprehension Score (%) Fixation Duration (ms) Results Single Spaced Double Spaced Spacing

Comprehension Scores (%) Participant Data Participants Fig. 2 The average comprehension scores across all subjects

Discussion ● Lack of correlation between line spacing, fixation duration, and comprehension levels ● Future experiments ● Practical application

2. PSA Text Placement Emma Leeds, Raje Enjeti, Rachana Balasubramanian, Jessica Mui

PSAs: Public Service Announcements Hypothesis: Text placement at top would create longer fixations and thus higher comprehension than if text was at the bottom

Methods

Results

Conclusion =

Eye Movements when Lying Saavan Chintalacheruvu & Nevil Abraham

Introduction ● Common notion that eyes focus on top-left when lying ● Some experimental evidence supporting this

Materials & Methods

Results: Average Fixation Duration ● T: 360 ± 370 milliseconds ● L: 370 ± 4. 0 x 10^2 milliseconds ● p = 0. 468

Possible Errors/Improvement ● Nature of the stimulus o Why do people lie? o People usually lie to people o not a good representation of lying ● Improvement o Lie to an actual human being o Give participants a reason to lie

Conclusion ● No correlation within the experiment’s parameters ● However: o data was highly variable o results are inconclusive o must be repeated with improvements

The Antisaccade Task Under Changing Fixation Points Grace Chen, Cynthia Guo, Bum Shik Kim, Kang Woo Kim

What is an antisaccade? Saccade ● Inhibition of reflexive saccade ● Frontal cortex ability Antisaccade

Hypotheses Antisaccade ability will vary with: 1. stationary vs. moving fixation point 2. moving in opposite vs. same direction as cue vs vs

Experimental Design Control static fixation point cues appear on L/R Experimental moving fixation point cues appear in same/opposite direction 30 trials 15 left 64 trials 15 right 32 same direction 16 left 16 right 32 opposite direction 16 left 16 right

Analysis of Results

General Conclusions ● ● Eye patterns remain steady under varied conditions Moving fixation point reduced antisaccade ability Dynamic feedback between eyes and cognition High variability between participants

Acknowledgements Dr. Minjoon Kouh Frank Minio NJ Governor’s School of the Sciences Dr. Adam Cassano Dr. Steve Surace Anna Mae Dinio-Bloch Bayer Health Care Independent College Fund of NJ/Johnson & Johnson AT&T Actavis Pharmaceuticals Celgene Novartis Laura (NJGSS ’ 86) and John Overdeck NJGSS Alumnae and Parents of Alumnae Board of Overseers, New Jersey Governor’s Schools State of New Jersey Drew University and all of NJGSS’s generous sponsors!