The 2019 edition of the European Conference on Eye Movements (ECEM) took place in blisteringly hot Alicante this year. This coincided almost perfectly with the end of our ORA grant so Soazig and I were keen to go and present some of the key findings to the eye-movement community. It was also very welcome to trade the dull and rainy UK with its Brexit blues for sunnier climes đ. Â We were fortunate to both get talk slots; my talk was first in our session, which was chaired by Marissa Carrasco. I described some experiments demonstrating how the Effective Oculomotor Range constrains spatial attention, including data from our recent Cortex paper, and some new data (slides here: DanSmith ECEM 2019). Everyone seemed interested and there was lots of nodding, although I once made the mistake of making eye-contact with a frowning Heiner Deubel which rather to put me off my stride! There were some good questions but I fumbled the one on IOR a bit, which was annoying because all the data are in the Cortex paper and I just forgot about it. I then moderated for Marissaâs talk (since she came to Durham we are now on 1st name terms đ) but there was then a rather comical/awkward moment when we had a brief discussion/disagreement about how much time was left 10 mins into her talk. (I know it was exactly 10 minutes BECAUSE I WAS TIMING IT WITH A TIMER). Luca Wollenberg was next, and he presented some nice new data on the time-course attention in averaging saccades, and got a good laugh offering to do a little dance in lieu of taking questions. The session concluded with two interesting talks from Visser, Renswoude & colleagues on attention to features in category learning. In the final session of the meeting Soazig presented data on interactions between WM and presaccadic attention that was so hot-off-the press she was still running analyses the day before the talk. Unfortunately, I missed it having booked an early flight, but from what I hear on Twitter it went very well, and the data are certainly very exciting.
In addition to seeing the talks on attention and eye-movements in our own sessions, one of the pleasures of ECEM is hearing about the range of cognitive processes that are informed by studies of eye-movements, and this year was no different. Some particular highlights for me were Edwin Dalmaijerâs talk on disgust, a very insightful discussion of eye-movements in Parkinsonâs disease with Chyrstalina Antoniades, the keynote from Jenny Groh explaining the motoric effects of auditory attention, Jonas Ludwigâs talk on the âzero biasâ in decision making and Eugene McSorley’s talk on saccade programming. Pupillometry seemed to be in vogue this year too, and I enjoyed Sebastiaan Mathots talk describing on pupillometric marker for exploration vs exploitation modes of visual search. I also really enjoyed the session on âLooking at Nothingâ chaired by Johansson & Rosner. I sat in on a similar session at my first ECEM in Lund (2013) and it was interesting to see how the debate had moved on from a discussion of the existence of the looking at nothing effect to a discussion of its function. It also gave me a few ideas for experiments on imagery, which chimed with the ideas I discussed with Dan Eaves at the RIO group 
meeting earlier this year (REPORT).
In general, I was impressed with the quality of talks (with the odd exception), although it was a bit unfortunate that some of the screens in the lecture rooms were rather small. There was lots of interest in the poster sessions too, my favourite poster being this one from Rakesh Nanjappar ->. It was also amusing to watch Ken Scott-Brown hovering around his two students (Krystian Ciesielski and Crystal Silver) like an expectant father as they presented their work. Mercifully there was only one of the ânew postersâ where most of the body is taken up with the conclusion, as if the purpose of a poster session is to put up an advert. The poster sessions were also a great opportunity to catch up with old chums like Ken, Doug Barrett, Eugene McSorely, Iain Gilchrist, Edwin Dalmeijer and Cas Ludwig. Our discussions during the posters were well lubricated with wine, beer and soft drinks & there was plenty of tapas-style food at lunchtime which was included with the conference registration fee. I thought the quality of the catering at lunchtime was excellent, but not everyone shared this view and I think there were some issues with the vegetarian selections. In the evenings we tended to eat late, as is the Spanish way, and a real highlight for me was the evening in the tapas bar where the staff rang a bell whenever they got a tip. I also really enjoyed the conference dinner in the spectacular surroundings of Castell Santa Barbara, although I paid for it the next day!
A minor gripe was that the lack of wi-fi, and at first this felt very frustrating. However, on reflection I think it was probably a bit of a blessing in disguise as I spent a lot more time talking with people, which is probably one of the main points of a conference! Overall ECEM 2019 was an excellent meeting which I found intellectually stimulating, produced some excellent schmoozing and was thoroughly enjoyable. Hats off to the organizing committee for doing a great job, Iâm already looking forward to Leicester 2021.
Grant Success!
Dan has been awarded a 3 year grant from the Dunhill Medical Trust to study attention and working memory in Progressive Supranuclear Palsy. PSP is a neurodegenerative disease affecting the basal ganglia that is characterised by paralysis of the eyes. People who suffer from PSP are often misdiagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease, and so receive inappropriate medication. The project will explore whether cognitive tests of attention and memory can be used to make early and more reliable diagnoses of PSP. The project is in collaboration with Dr Neil Archibald (James Cook University Hospital) and the PSP Association.
Talk at PSYPAG 2019
A couple of weeks ago I was invited down to Sheffield to present an overview of our recent findings to the PsyPAG annual conference. PsyPAG is the official postgraduate section of the BPS and covers all aspects of applied and academic psychology, so although I was part of the âCognitiveâ stre
am, I thought I should try and make my talk a bit broader than the usual premotor-theory bashing schtick Soazig and I indulge in. I took some inspiration from a talk Ray Klein gave in Durham a few years back where he talked about oculomotor readiness theories in terms of embodied cognition, and from the recent RIO group meeting I attended, where Dan Eaves and I discussed the many similarities between motor theories of attention and motor theories of imagery. I was keen to mention some recent data on spatial working memory in Progressive Supranuclear Palsy and framing the talk in the broad terms of âvisual cognitionâ gave me licence to talk about a wider range of topics than just Premotor theory. With this theme I managed to touch on our earlier work with Case A.I, some eye-abduction data, Soazigâs recent data on search and cueing beyond the Effective Oculomotor Range and a bit on PSP. In the end I think this approach was quite successful at keeping people engaged with the talk, with lots of people nodding and nobody frowning too much! Interestingly, the questions were really focused on the applications of the research to different disorders, such as ADHD. On reflection, I think offering a more thorough discussion of the potential applications of our project in terms of rehab. For example, touching the kind of work Joris Elshout is doing in the Utrecht leg of the project, might have been a good idea. At the end of the talk I was surprised and delighted to be given some mementos of the occasion, which were only slightly awkward to carry back on the train đ.  If you are interested in seeing the slides, they can be found here: “Are cognitive processes embodied in the motor system?”
Around my talk I had an enjoyable time looking through the many and varied posters. My favourite was from Gabriele Pesimena that examined to what extent perspective taking was disrupted by changes to the perspective of the avatar. Pleasingly, changing perspective had no effect, just as Geoff Cole had shown a couple of years ago! Many other posters utilised eye-tracking in one way or another, and this technique really seems to be becoming commonplace (although TBH in some cases it wasnât always clear why eye-tracking was being used). There was also time to catch a couple of talks, and I particularly enjoyed Ben Butterworth (a Durham Psychology alumni) outlining the challenges of his research on the effects of alcohol on memory performance, and Suzy Hodgsonâs talk on the roles new fathers play and how they interact with heath services. The talk sessions were very good with a really enthusiastic and engaged audience. There was also an excellent lunch, although I had a slightly awkward moment when I got shooed away from some very tasty cakes which apparently belonged to a different conference! However, all was not lost, as I subsequently discovered the Psychology cakes in the poster session đ. I also bumped into Ellen Ridley, who was receiving a Masters award for her research at Durham and offered her my congratulations. I really enjoyed the conference and would definitely recommend it to any psychology postgrads looking for an opportunity to share their work in progress and gain experience giving talks. Its also worth noting that PsyPAGÂ offers many awards and small grants that can really help PGR develop their careers Finally, I would like to thank Suzanne Hodgson for the invitation to give the keynote.
Dan Smith
Goodbye & Hello to Soazig!
The Durham part of the Motor Bias project came to an end at the start of August. Fortunately Soazig, has now been re-appointed as a teaching fellow in the Psychology Department. This excellent news means we can continue to collaborate on the ideas we’ve been developing over the last few years. Welcome back Soazig!
Conference Report: Cognitive and Motor Processes in Spatial Attention (11th – 12th July 2019)
Last week Soazig and I co-organised a workshop to mark the end of our 3-year ORA collaboration with Stefan van der Stigchel and Thomas Schenk, and here are a few reflections on how things went.
The workshop kicked off on Wednesday with the arrival with many of our invited speakers and our two keynotes. The only event we had planned was a meal in the evening at a local tapas restaurant. There was a minor but rather stressful hiccup when it emerged that our booking had mysteriously vanished, but Soazig sorted out another restaurant (she got the owner to find us something!) while I fussed around our gang of 12 visitors. Fortunately, the evening was warm, there was lots of catching-up to do and the new restaurant was just a couple of minutesâ walk away so nobody seemed to mind too much. After dinner most people went back to the accommodation at Stephenson College, while I scoured Durham city centre with Marisa and Thomas looking for plug adaptors. Sadly, our hunt was in vain; unlike New York and Munich, Durham isnât really a 24 hour city!
The talks began after lunch the following day. Most of our delegates spent the morning walking up and down Cardiac Hill (we sit at the top of quite a steep hill) to get âproper coffeeâ from the Calman cafĂ©, while and we rushed around putting up signs and poster boards and getting the registration desk ready. We were very fortunate to be assisted by Ellie, who was on a work experience placement from a local school. As the morning progressed I spent more and more time schmoozing people as they arrived, while Soazig and Ellie got people organised, and by 12:20 we were ready to go. After a few words from me (no fire drill, directions to the loos, etc) Marisa Carrasco gave our first keynote which outlined some important dissociations between presaccadic attention and covert attention in terms of their effects on response gain and tuning in the visual system. There was also some impressive new research on covert orienting within the fovea. The take-home from this seemed to be that endogenous covert orienting could occur simultaneously with but independently of microsaccadic eye-movements. I enjoyed this very much until it also transpired that a similar dissociation was observed for exogenous orienting! The âkilotrialsâ approach (where they count trials in thousands, not tens or hundreds) is one I find hugely impressive, but I do wonder about the effect this volume of practice has on psychological processes which are known to be sensitive to learning, such as attention. The remainder of this session comprised talks from Martin Rolfs, who argued that the primary function of presaccadic attention was to serve perceptual continuity, Casimir Ludwig, who elegantly argued that current models of saccade control that rely on race models do not adequately account for the effects of foveal load on saccade latency, and Trevor Crawford, who described deficits of saccade control and working memory in Alzhiemers disease that seem to offer an important early marker for the disease. Trevorâs talk also included some footage of visuomotor actions (AD patients making a cup of tea). It was striking how normal the eye-movement of these patients were when performing a well practiced, real world task, compared to the profound deficits observed under lab conditions. He concluded by cautioning us to consider to what extent the âdeficitsâ we observe in our clever lab-based experiments reflect the functional impairments experienced by patients.
After a coffee break our second session got underway with a talk from Nina Hanning, who presented some impressive data from her PhD research and argued against our proposal that exogenous, covert orienting is tied to the oculomotor system (you can read a more extensive discussion of her paper here). We didnât get much of a chance to discuss this in the session but had a very good chat about it at the conference dinner later in the day. Therese Collins then gave a talk on the reference frame of action prediction, followed by a bit of change of pace in which Anna Grubert give a hugely entertaining and informative talk on the time-course of activation of search templates, which seem to be flexibly activated in the 600ms or so leading to the expected onset of a search array. As a special treat Stefan gave us an overview of the recent debate about how to interpret the finding that attention is not allocated to the endpoint of saccades that land between a target and distractor. Luca Wollenberg had his say too, and much like the discussion between Nina and myself, everything was very civilised. The day ended with a poster session and drinks reception, followed by dinner at St. Hilde & St. Bede College, where we had a veggie starter, roast chicken & veg, cheesecake then coffee. There was lots of wine, but no beer much to the disgruntlement of our German colleagues!
Day two was thankfully a bit cooler than day 1, and the focus was much more on neuropsychological aspects of attention and eye movements. Laure Pisella gave a lovely talk outlining a number of dissociations between presaccadic attention and covert attention in patients with parietal lobe lesions, which was followed by a very detailed study of transsaccadic memory in patients with right parietal brain damage from Teuni ten Brink. Contrary to previous reports, these patients had no specific problem with transsaccadic memory, although there was a global reduction in spatial memory performance. Monika Harvey then gave a very thought-provoking talk on the use of tDCS in and RCT trial for neurorehabilitation of neglect. The key message was that although patients tolerated tDCS well (and in fact were quite keen to receive it) it was really hard to recruit to the trial which required 10 in-hospital sessions, and ultimately the tDCS didnât seem to greatly potentiate the therapy. I found this a really important result, as there is often a big song and dance about the therapeutic potential for tDCS, and Monikaâs work sounded a welcome note of caution about the efficacy and feasibility of tDCS interventions. The final act of this session was a keynote from Chris Olivers, who gave a riveting talk outlining a computational account of the role visual working memory in the control of action that really got the audience thinking and was much discussed in the lunch break.
In the final session Soazig gave a brief outline of some of key ideas we had set out to test out in the ORA grant, then discussed two key experiments in which we showed that exogenous covert attention is constrained by the oculomotor range. This caused some discussion between Marisa, Nina and ourselves, as to how to reconcile our different findings, which has yet to be resolved. Karin Ludwig then presented data from a trial using gaze-contingent changes in visual scenes to treat spatial neglect, followed by Joris Elshout who argued that patients with visual neglect present a dissociation between presaccadic attention, which was largely preserved, and covert attention, which was severely impaired. This talk closed the meeting, and there was just enough time for a team photo before everyone went on their way.
Overall, I feel like the meeting was a big success (based on lots of people saying lots of nice things), but boy was it tiring! I think my favourite part was the poster session and conference dinner. It seemed to me that this was where all the really interesting conversations took place, and I certainly got a huge amount from the chat I had with Stefan and Nina about how to reconcile our different experimental data. I must admit to also being really thrilled to meet Chris Olivers and Marisa Carrasco. In particular Marisa is someone whose work I am rather in awe of and I had felt rather nervous about meeting with her. It was a delight to find that she was so down-to-earth and she really set the tone for what I think was a friendly, informal but also very high quality meeting.
A few last observations in no particular order
- We put everyone up in Stephenson College. It was cheap and cheerful (except for Thomas, whose shower was broken), and within walking distance of the conference venue. I had worried that this type of accommodation might be a bit low-rent for our very eminent speakers, but everyone seemed happy with it. I actually really enjoyed the communal breakfast at long banqueting tables, it felt a bit like reliving my days as an undergrad!
- We didnât get as many PhD students as I would have liked, perhaps because we clashed with the EPS meeting in Bournemouth. It might also be because we relied mainly on advertising the meeting on VisionList, CVNET and Twitter. If I was doing this sort of thing again I would definitely explore the possibility of promoting the meeting via societies like the EPS and BPS.
- We did conference folders with a pen, notepad and schedule. Lots of people didnât bother with the pack, so in future Iâd consider just provide a pen & a schedule when people register, or maybe nothing at all.
- We over-catered, especially on the wine and nibbles for the poster session. We had ~50 people and we would probably have been better ordering for ~30. We didnât get much advice on how much food was appropriate for 50 people, so we wasted quite a lot of food and cash. Iâm not sure how this can be resolved, but there must be some good resources somewhere that can help with catering budgets.
- Germans like good coffee and beer and are very happy to let you know about these preferences. Next time round Iâd offer much less wine and more beer (alcoholic and non-alcoholic) at the poster session.
- Itâs at least a 2 person job. I was really grateful to Soazig for co-organising the meeting, and she in fact did all the hard stuff like chasing people for abstracts, organising the food and troubleshooting during the meeting (she found fans, printed posters, booked restaurants, taxiâs & tours, sourced plugs & adaptors and no doubt all sorts of other things I donât know about).
- Itâs expensive. Even with relatively budget accommodation our meeting will probably come in at >6k. We included funds for the meeting in the grant (thank you ESRC!) but we still needed some extra financial support from the Durham Psychology Department, for which I am also very grateful.