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

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

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

8. Experimental Design Group 1 Group 2 A1B2 C1 A2B1C2

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

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

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 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

22. Conclusion ● No correlation within the experiment’s parameters ● However: o data was highly variable o results are inconclusive o 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? Saccade Antisaccade ● Inhibition of reflexive saccade ● Frontal cortex ability

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

27. Experimental Design Control static fixation point cues appear on L/R Experimental moving fixation point cues appear in same/opposite direction 30 trials 64 trials 15 left15 right 32 opposite direction 32 same 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 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!