The data was sampled at a rate of 1000 Hz. The data were analyzed online by the experimenter learn more and if participants did not keep fixation the trial was discarded and repeated. The results are presented in Fig. 3. All data were tested for normality using the Shapiro–Wilk statistic; the data were normal unless otherwise stated. Inferential statistics used a significance level of p < .05, except when multiple comparisons were performed, where a Bonferonni correction of p < .016 was applied. For both tasks less than 1% of trials were redone because participants failed to keep fixation (CBT: 0.58%; Visual Patterns: 0.56%). Analyses are concerned with the mean span for each condition.

A 2 × 2 × 3 repeated measures ANOVA with the factors Task (Visual, Spatial), Side of Presentation (Temporal, Nasal), and Eye Position (Frontal, MDV3100 Abducted 20, Abducted 40) was performed. A significant

main effect of Task was found, F(1,13) = 235.68; p = .00, with memory span being higher in the visual patterns task (M = 7.38, SE = .26) compared to the Corsi Blocks task (M = 4.72; SE = .22); therefore, the two tasks are analyzed separately. The only statistically significant result was the interaction between Task and Side of Presentation, F(1,13) = 6.27; p = .026. A 2 × 3 repeated measures ANOVA with the factors Side of Presentation (Temporal, Nasal), and Eye Position (Frontal, Abducted 20, Abducted 40) revealed no significant main effects (Side of Presentation: p = .625; Eye Position: p = .280). The interaction was also not statistically significant (p = .682, η2 = 0.2). The same 2 × 3 repeated measures ANOVA was performed for Corsi spans. While the main effect

of Eye Position was not statistically significant (p = .145, η2 = 0.14), the main effect of Side of Presentation was, F(1,13) = 11.56; p = .005, η2 = 0.47 with span being higher in the nasal conditions (M = 4.86, SE = .22) compared to the temporal conditions (M = 4.58, SE = .23). The interaction was not significant (p = .393, η2 = 0.069). Bonferroni-corrected planned comparisons (paired samples t-tests; corrected alpha level p < .016) revealed that Corsi span in the temporal hemifield was significantly impaired compared to span in the nasal hemifield, but only in the Abducted 40 condition t(13) = 2.84; p = .014, d = .78; span reduced Unoprostone by .42 (SE = .15). There was a trend in the same direction in the Abducted 20 condition that did not approach significance when corrected for multiple comparisons (t(13) = 2.12; p = .053; d = .59). There was no difference in performance in the Frontal condition condition t(13) = .89; p = .39, d = .23). Memory span on the Corsi Blocks task was significantly reduced only when presented locations could not be encoded as the goal of saccadic eye movements; i.e., when memoranda were presented in the temporal hemifield in the 40° eye-abducted condition.