Eye movements reinstate remembered locations during episodic simulation

Abstract

Imagining the future, like recalling the past, relies on the ability to retrieve and imagine a spatial context. Research suggests that eye movements support this process by reactivating spatial contextual details from memory, a process termed gaze reinstatement. While gaze reinstatement has been linked to successful memory retrieval, it remains unclear whether it supports the related process of future simulation. In the present study, we recorded both eye movements and audio while participants described familiar locations from memory and subsequently imagined future events occurring in those locations while either freely moving their eyes or maintaining central fixation. Restricting viewing during simulation significantly reduced self-reported vividness ratings, supporting a critical role for eye movements in simulation. When viewing was unrestricted, participants spontaneously reinstated gaze patterns specific to the simulated location, replicating findings of gaze reinstatement during memory retrieval. Finally, gaze-based location reinstatement was predictive of simulation success, indexed by the number of internal (episodic) details produced, with both measures peaking early and co-varying over time. Together, these findings suggest that the same oculomotor processes that support episodic memory retrieval - that is, gaze-based reinstatement of spatial context - also support episodic simulation.

Keywords: Eye movements; Imagination; Memory; Simulation.

Fig 1.

(A) Mean internal detail counts for the fixed- and free-viewing conditions. (B) Mean external detail counts for the fixed- and free-viewing conditions. (C) Mean vividness ratings for the fixed- and free-viewing conditions (1 = not vivid at all, 4 = extremely vivid). Black circles represent condition means; error bars represent 95% within-participant confidence intervals (Morey, 2008) computed with the Rmisc package (https://rdrr.io/cran/Rmisc/man/summarySEwithin.html); * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001.

Fig 2.

(A) Mean similarity scores for same and different locations. Black circles represent condition means; error bars represent 95% within-participant confidence intervals (Morey, 2008) computed with the Rmisc package (https://rdrr.io/cran/Rmisc/man/summarySEwithin.html). (B) Visualization of results from the LMEM relating internal detail count to gaze similarity. (C). Visualization of the change in gaze similarity scores and internal detail counts (scaled within participants) over time. * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001.