Using a Kinect sensor to acquire biological motion: Toolbox and evaluation.

Biological motion (BM) is the movement of animate entities, which conveys rich social information. To obtain pure BM, researchers nowadays predominantly use point-light displays (PLDs), which depict BM through a set of light points (e.g., 12 points) placed at distinct joints of a moving human body. Most prevalent BM stimuli are created by state-of-the-art motion capture systems. Although these stimuli are highly precise, the motion capture system is expensive and bulky, and its process of constructing a PLD-based BM is time-consuming and complex. These factors impede the investigation of BM mechanisms. In this study, we propose a free Kinect-based biological motion capture (KBC) toolbox based on the Kinect Sensor 2.0 in C++. The KBC toolbox aims to help researchers acquire PLD-based BM in an easy, low-cost, and user-friendly way. We conducted three experiments to examine whether KBC-generated BM can genuinely reflect the processing characteristics of BM: (1) Is BM from this source processed globally in vision? (2) Does its BM (e.g., from the feet) retain detailed local information? and (3) Does the BM convey emotional information? We obtained positive results in response to all three questions. Therefore, we think that the KBC toolbox can be useful in generating BM for future research.

Visual working memory impairs visual detection: A function of working memory load or sensory load?

Researchers have explored the influence of visual working memory (VWM) load on visual perception in the past decade. One of their key findings is that a high VWM load leads to reduced visual detection sensitivity to incoming visual stimuli. However, recent studies imply that persistent sensory processing continues after the memory array is offset. It is possible that the impaired visual detection is due to the sensory load of the residual sensory processing of the memory array (sensory load account) rather than the working memory load of the VWM task (VWM load account). We performed four experiments to examine the impacts on visual detection. Experiment 1 manipulated the retention time of the memory array while keeping the VWM load constant, revealing reduced visual detection along with retention time. Experiments 2 and 3 manipulated the VWM load while maintaining a constant sensory load, and visual detection was not affected. Experiment 4 affirmed that the findings in Experiments 1-3 were reliable. Together, the results of the current study suggest that the residual sensory load, rather than the VWM load of the VWM task, impairs visual detection. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Visual working-memory capacity load does not modulate distractor processing.

Over the last decade, researchers have explored the influence of visual working-memory (WM) load on selective attention in general, by focusing on the modulation of visual WM load on distractor processing in perception. However, there were three distinct hypotheses (perceptual-load hypothesis, resolution hypothesis, and domain-specific hypothesis) with different predictions. While the perceptual-load hypothesis suggests that visual WM capacity load serves as a type of perceptual load, the latter two hypotheses consider visual WM capacity load acting as a type of central executive load, with a constraint that the domain-specific hypothesis claimed that only a content overlap existed between WM load and the perceptual task. By adding a flanker task into the maintenance phase of visual WM, here we attempted to understand the influence of visual WM load on distractor processing. We systematically manipulated the parameters of the task setting between WM and flanker tasks (Experiments 1-4), the perceptual load of flanker task (Experiment 5), the settings of the flanker stimuli and the WM load (Experiment 6), and the content overlap between WM task and flanker task and the exposure time of flanker task (Experiments 7, 8, and 9). However, in 11 out of 12 sub-experiments we consistently found that the visual WM load did not modulate the distractor processing. The implications of these findings are discussed.