This meant that in the abducted conditions participants encoded the stimuli normally but rehearsed and retrieved the information in the

abducted position. The results are presented in Fig. 4. 1.15% of CBT trials and 0.79% of visual pattern trials were redone because participants failed to keep fixation. A 2 × 2 × 3 repeated measures ANOVA with the factors Task (Visual, Spatial), Side of Presentation (Temporal, Nasal), and Eye Position (Frontal, Abducted 20, Abducted 40) was performed. A significant main effect of Task was found, F(1,13) = 351.15; p < .000, with memory span being higher in the visual patterns task (M = 7.53, SE = .17) compared to the Corsi Blocks task (M = 4.63; SE = .15); therefore, the two tasks are analyzed separately. The main effect of Eye Position was significant, F(2,26) = 3.73; Raf inhibition p = .038, as was the interaction between Side of Presentation and Eye Position, F(2,26) = 3.44; p = .047. A 2 × 3 repeated

measures ANOVA with the factors Side of Presentation (Temporal, Nasal), and Eye Position (Frontal, Abducted 20, Abducted 40) revealed no significant main effects (Side of Presentation: p = .134, η2 = 0.16; Eye Position: p = .401, η2 = 0.07). The interaction between these factors was not BKM120 datasheet statistically significant (p = .414, η2 = 0.06). The 2 × 3 repeated measures ANOVA with the factors Side of Presentation (Temporal, Nasal), and Eye Position (Frontal, Abducted 20, Abducted 40) revealed a non-significant main effect of Side of Presentation (p = .831, η2 = 0.004), and a significant main effect of Eye Position, F(2,26) = 8.90; p = .001, η2 = 0.41. Span was lowest in the Abducted 40 conditions (M = 4.38, SE = .15) compared to the Abducted 20 (M = 4.74, SE = .18) and Frontal conditions (M = 4.79, SE = .17). The interaction between Side of Presentation and Eye Position approached statistical significance (p = .052, η2 = 0.20). Bonferroni-corrected planned comparisons (paired samples t-tests) revealed that Corsi span in the temporal hemispace was significantly

impaired compared to span in the nasal hemispace, but only in the Abducted 40 condition t(13) = 2.83; p = .014, d = .83; reduction of .29 (SE = .13). There was no difference in spatial span in the frontal condition (Frontal Nasal: M = 4.71, SE = .19; Frontal Temporal: M = 4.86, SE = .17; t(13) = −1.02; p = .328). Parvulin Likewise, there was no difference between the two Abducted 20 conditions (Abducted 20 Nasal: M = 4.70, SE = .20; Abducted 20 Temporal: M = 4.79, SE = .19; p = .567; t(13) = −0.59; p = .57). Memory span on the Corsi Blocks task was found to be significantly reduced only when memoranda were presented in the temporal hemifield in the 40° eye-abducted condition. Conversely, there was no effect of eye-abduction on Visual Pattern span in any condition. In comparison to Experiment 1, there was also no longer any trend for lower memory span to be observed on the Corsi task in the 20° eye-abducted condition.