Eye Movements and Handedness in Memory (#246)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

John Scofield and Bogdan Kostic. Eye Movements and Handedness in Memory. (2016, April 05). Retrieved 10:36, May 22, 2017 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjQ2

MLA Style

"Eye Movements and Handedness in Memory" John Scofield and Bogdan Kostic. 05 Apr 2016 12:08 22 May 2017, 10:36 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjQ2>

MHRA Style

'Eye Movements and Handedness in Memory', John Scofield and Bogdan Kostic, , 05 April 2016 12:08 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjQ2> [accessed 22 May 2017]

Chicago Style

"Eye Movements and Handedness in Memory", John Scofield and Bogdan Kostic, , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjQ2 (accessed May 22, 2017)


Eye Movements and Handedness in Memory [Internet]. John Scofield and Bogdan Kostic; 2016 Apr 05, 12:08 [cited 2017 May 22]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjQ2

Reference to Original Report of Finding Lyle, K. B., Logan, J. M., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Eye movements enhance memory for individuals who are strongly right-handed and harm it for individuals who are not. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(3), 515-520.
Title Eye Movements and Handedness in Memory
If the original article contained multiple experiments, which one did you attempt to replicate? e.g., you might respond 'Study 1' or 'Experiment 4'. Experiment 1
Link to PDF of Original Report
Brief Statement of Original Result The original results reported that horizontal eye movements improve memory for strongly right-handed (SR) participants, but participants who are not strongly right-handed (nSR) do not show improved memory. An interaction between handedness and eye movement condition (horizontal vs. no eye movements) approached significance for correct recall and achieved significance for false recall; eye movements resulted in fewer intrusions for SR participants, but nSR participants exhibited more intrusions.
Type of Replication Attempted Conceptual Replication
Result Type Failure to Replicate
Difference? Opposite Direction, .25 - .71
Number of Subjects 110
Number of Subjects in Original Study 142
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2015
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) John Scofield and Bogdan Kostic
Detailed Description of Method/Results The current study is primarily a replication of Lyle et al. (2008), with elements incorporated from Christman, Garvey, Propper, and Phaneuf (2003), Experiment 1. In the current study participants sat in groups of five to 12 facing a projector screen at the front of a small classroom. Participants were told they would see a series of words appear on the screen, and that there would be a memory test of the words at the end of the experiment. The stimuli were 50 medium-frequency nouns between seven and nine letters long. Words were presented in size 28 Times New Roman font, one at a time in the center of the screen for five seconds each with a two-second interstimulus interval. After the word list was complete the experimenter passed out the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory for participants to fill out and turn over when complete. Participants were then told that they would see a dot alternating back and forth on the screen. Participants were instructed to keep looking at the dot as it moved back and forth. In one condition, the dot alternated between the left and right sides of the screen. In the other condition the dot alternated between the top and bottom of the screen. Participants were randomly assigned to conditions in groups. In both conditions the dot alternated every 500 milliseconds for 30 seconds. The experimenter observed participants to ensure they were following the dot with their eyes. Finally, on the back of the inventory participants were instructed to recall as many words as they could from the first part of the experiment. The recall phase lasted five minutes and then participants were debriefed. Data from four participants were excluded for failing to consistently follow the dot with their eyes.

Analyses consisted of 2 (Eye Movement Condition: Vertical vs. Horizontal) x 2 (Handedness: nSR vs. SR) Between-Subjects ANOVAs. The interaction between Eye Movement Condition and Handedness for correct recall was not significant, F(1,106) = 0.14, p = .71 (see Figure 1), and neither was the interaction for false recall, F(1,106) = 1.37, p = .25 (see Figure 2). No main effects of any factor for correct recall or false recall were significant.

The current results do not necessarily disconfirm the effect of eye movements and handedness on memory, but the current results at least suggest that effect is dependent on specific conditions (proximity to screen, timing and/or nature of distractor task, and type of control condition). See methodological differences between the current study and the original study below.

Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
There were several substantial differences between the methods in the current study and those of Lyle et al. In the current study, the control condition involved vertical eye movements (adapted from Christman et al.), while in Lyle et al. the control condition involved no eye movements. In the current study, participants viewed the stimuli and the alternating dots on a screen at the front of a classroom while seated at different distances and orientations to the screen. In Lyle et al.’s original study, participants’ degree of visual angle appear to have been more tightly controlled, and each participant presumably viewed the stimuli and the dots on an individual computer screen. Another methodological difference is that in the current study the Edinburg Handedness Inventory was administered between the word list and the eye movement task (adapting the procedure of Christman et al., who administered personality questionnaires as a filler task before completing eye movements), while in the original study handedness was assessed at the beginning of the experiment and there was no filler task or retention interval.
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
John Scofield and Bogdan Kostic
Location of ProjectMissouri State University
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
University students from subject pool
Students were enrolled in an Experimental Psychology (Research Methods) course and participated as part of a lab activity that was led by the instructors.
Where did these subjects reside?United States
Was this a Class Project?No
Further Details of Results as pdf
Additional Comments
Email of Original Investigator
Quantitive Information
I have complied with ethical standards for experimentation on human beings and, if necessary, have obtained appropriate permission from an Institutional Review Board or other oversight group.
TAG: Attention TAG: JDM TAG: Language TAG: Learning TAG: Memory TAG: Perception TAG: Performance TAG: Problem Solving TAG: Social Cognition TAG: Social Psychology TAG: Thinking

Are you posting an unpublished replication attempt that you conducted yourself, or noting a published replication attempt?

Post Unpublished
Post Published