Re-evaluating whether bilateral eye movements influence memory retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several recent studies have reported enhanced memory when retrieval is preceded by repetitive horizontal eye movements, relative to vertical or no eye movements. The reported memory boost has been referred to as the Saccade-Induced Retrieval Enhancement (SIRE) effect. Across two experiments, memory performance was compared following repetitive horizontal or vertical eye movements, as well as following a control condition of no eye movements. In Experiment 1, we conceptually replicated Christman and colleagues' seminal study, finding a statistically significant SIRE effect, albeit with weak Bayesian evidence. We therefore sought to conduct another close extension. In Experiment 2, horizontal and vertical eye movement conditions were manipulated separately, and sample size was increased. No evidence of a SIRE effect was found: Bayesian statistical analyses demonstrated significant evidence for a null effect. Taken together, these experiments suggest that the SIRE effect is inconsistent. The current experiments call into question the generalizability of the SIRE effect and suggest that its presence is very sensitive to experimental design. Future work should further assess the robustness of the effect before exploring related theories or underlying mechanisms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".