Ty of Active manipulated objects.Trivial elements such as overfor the Passive condition for the msec latency interval all viewingattention of each manipulated and latertested ob(P values) (Fig.C).jects have been not uniquely linked with all the effects with the We monitored viewing behavior for the duration of study (Initial Study and Restudy) to evaluate possible mechanisms from the improve in manipulation (Supplemental Results).We subsequent BMS-3 custom synthesis evaluated irrespective of whether the exceptional viewing behavior cueing capability for the actively retrieved objects (see Supplemenduring Restudy in the Active condition was predictive in the tal Methods for eye tracking details).Object viewing did not differwww.learnmem.orgLearning MemoryActive retrieval and episodic bindingfurther suggest that higher ERP signals of memory retrieval for Active manipulated cues were not just a reflection of higher viewing of these cues in the course of Restudy.To evaluate the msec interval, we extracted trials that demonstrated low viewing with the manipulated object throughout this interval (determined by median split of viewing durations) for the manipulated cue situation and compared ERPs across the Active and Passive conditions (Fig.D).Imply amplitudes have been considerably larger for the Active relative to the Passive condition at centroparietal [t P .] and occipitocentral web sites [t P .].These results recommend that viewing behavior throughout the msec interval within the Active situation was related with binding the manipulatedFigure .Activeretrieval selectively modulates cueing efficacy and ERP correlates of retrieval.(A) The proportion of appropriately recalled objectlocations increased selectively when Active manipulated objects had been employed as cues, suggesting that Active retrieval promoted dominance of those objects resulting from disproportionate binding with the other nonmanipulated objects.(B) Active manipulated cues exhibited enhanced positivity between and msec relative to nonmanipulated cues.These final results recommend that manipulated object cues in the Active condition modulated retrievalrelated neural processing.(C) ERPs for the Passive situation usually do not differ amongst manipulated and nonmanipulated cues.Error bars indicate regular mean error. P , P , .ERP signals of cued retrieval at test (Fig.C,D).The two aspects of viewing behavior throughout PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21453976 Restudy related with the Active condition (much more than the Passive situation) included greater viewing in the manipulated object (at the expense from the other objects) during the very first msec interval followed by less viewing with the manipulated object (and hence a lot more viewing of the other objects) in the course of the msec interval (Fig.A).We as a result tested for associations between every of those two aspects of viewing behavior and ERP correlates of retrieval (Supplemental Techniques).To evaluate associations for the msec interval, we extracted trials that demonstrated high viewing of the manipulated object in the course of this interval (determined by median split of viewing durations) for the manipulated cue situation and compared ERPs across the Active and Passive situations (Fig.C).Imply amplitudes didn’t differ substantially across situations at either centroparietal or occipitoparietal websites (P values).For that reason, the first second of viewing might have been involved within the special memory processing that occurred inside the Active situation, nevertheless it was not important for later retrieving the other objects when an actively retrieved object served as a reminder cue.These resultswww.learnmem.orgFigure .Eye movements are mod.