TEAM 7: Cognitive Science

1. 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

2. Background • Fixation • Fixation Duration • Saccade • Dynamic loop between visual input and cognition

3. Table of Contents • Line spacing • PSA • Lying • Antisaccade

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

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

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

8. Group 1 Experimental Design A1 B2 C1 Group 2 A2 B1 C2

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

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

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

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

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

14. Methods

15. Results

16. Conclusion =

17. Eye Movements when Lying Saavan Chintalacheruvu & Nevil Abraham

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

19. Materials & Methods

20. Results: Average Fixation Duration • T:360 ± 370 milliseconds • L: 370 ± 4.0x10^2 milliseconds • p = 0.468

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

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

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

24. What is an antisaccade? • Inhibition of reflexive saccade • Frontal cortex ability Saccade Antisaccade

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

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

28. Analysis of Results

29. 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

30. 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 OverdeckNJGSS Alumnae and Parents of Alumnae • Board of Overseers, New Jersey Governor’s SchoolsState of New JerseyDrew University and all of NJGSS’s generous sponsors!