Article

Perceptual and motor inhibition of return: components or flavors?

Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, .
Attention Perception & Psychophysics (Impact Factor: 1.97). 06/2012; 74(7):1416-29. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-012-0332-x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The most common evidence for inhibition of return (IOR) is the robust finding of increased response times to targets that appear at previously cued locations following a cue-target interval exceeding ~300 ms. In a variation on this paradigm, Abrams and Dobkin (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20:467-477, 1994b) observed that IOR was greater when measured with a saccadic response to a peripheral target than with that to a central arrow, leading to the conclusion that saccadic responses to peripheral targets comprise motoric and perceptual components (the two-components theory for saccadic IOR), whereas saccadic responses to a central target comprise a single motoric component. In contrast, Taylor and Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26:1639-1656, 2000) discovered that IOR for saccadic responses was equivalent for central and peripheral targets, suggesting a single motoric effect under these conditions. Rooted in methodological differences between the studies, three possible explanations for this discrepancy can be found in the literature. Here, we demonstrate that the empirical discrepancy is rooted in the following methodological difference: Whereas Abrams and Dobkin (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20:467-477, 1994b) administered central arrow and peripheral onset targets in separate blocks, Taylor and Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26:1639-1656, 2000) randomly intermixed these stimuli in a single block. Our results demonstrate that (1) blocking central arrow targets fosters a spatial attentional control setting that allows for the long-lasting IOR normally generated by irrelevant peripheral cues to be filtered and (2) repeated sensory stimulation has no direct effect on the magnitude of IOR measured by saccadic responses to targets presented about 1 s after a peripheral cue.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
131 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: When the interval between a spatially uninformative arrow and a visual target is short (<500 ms), response times (RTs) are fastest when the arrow points to the target. When this interval exceeds 500 ms, there is a near-universal absence of an effect of the arrow on RTs. Contrary to this expected pattern of results, Taylor and Klein (J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26:1639-1656, 2000) observed that RTs were slowest when a to-be-localized visual target occurred in the direction of a fixated arrow presented 1 s earlier (i.e., an "inhibitory" Cueing effect; ICE). Here we examined which factor(s) may have allowed the arrow to generate an ICE. Our experiments indicated that the ICE was a side effect of subthreshold response activation attributable to a task-induced association between the arrow and a keypress response. Because the cause of this ICE was more closely related to subthreshold keypress activation than to oculomotor activation, we considered that the effect might be more similar to the negative compatibility effect (NCE) than to inhibition of return (IOR). This similarity raises the possibility that classical IOR, when caused by a spatially uninformative peripheral onset event and measured by a keypress response to a subsequent onset, might represent, in part, another instance of an NCE. Serendipitously, we discovered that context (i.e., whether an uninformative peripheral onset could occur at the time of an uninformative central arrow) ultimately determined whether the "inhibitory" aftermath of automatic response activation would affect output or input pathways.
    Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 01/2013; 20:593-600. · 2.99 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Inhibition of return (IOR) is a spatial phenomenon that is thought to promote visual search functions by biasing attention and eye movements toward novel locations. Considerable research suggests distinct sensory and motor flavors of IOR, but it is not clear whether the motor type can affect responses other than eye movements. Most studies claiming to reveal motor IOR in the reaching control system have been confounded by their use of peripheral signals, which can invoke sensory rather than motor-based inhibitory effects. Other studies have used central signals to focus on motor, rather than sensory, effects in arm movements but have failed to observe IOR and have concluded that the motor form of IOR is restricted to the oculomotor system. Here, we show the first clear evidence that motor IOR can be observed for reaching movements when participants respond to consecutive central stimuli. This observation suggests that motor IOR serves a more general function than the facilitation of visual search, perhaps reducing the likelihood of engaging in repetitive behavior.
    Attention Perception & Psychophysics 09/2013; · 1.97 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Taylor and Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26:1639-1656, 2000) discovered two mutually exclusive "flavors" of inhibition of return (IOR): When the oculomotor system is "actively suppressed," IOR affects input processes (the perception/attention flavor), whereas when the oculomotor system is "engaged," IOR affects output processes (the motor flavor). Studies of brain activity with ignored cues have typically reported that IOR reduces an early sensory event-related potential (ERP) component (i.e., the P1 component) of the brain's response to the target. Since eye movements were discouraged in these experiments, the P1 reduction might be a reflection of the perception/attention flavor of IOR. If, instead of ignoring the cue, participants made a prosaccade to the cue (and then returned to fixation) before responding to the target, the motor flavor of IOR should then be generated. We compared these two conditions while monitoring eye position and recording ERPs to the targets. If the P1 modulation is related to the perceptual/attentional flavor of IOR, we hypothesized that it might be absent when the motoric flavor of IOR was generated by a prosaccade to the cue. Our results demonstrated that target-related P1 reductions and behavioral IOR were similar, and significant, in both conditions. However, P1 modulations were significantly correlated with behavioral IOR only when the oculomotor system was actively suppressed, suggesting that P1 modulations may only affect behaviorally exhibited IOR when the attentional/perceptual flavor of IOR is recruited.
    Attention Perception & Psychophysics 10/2012; · 1.97 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
43 Downloads
Available from
May 27, 2014