Inhibition of return in static but not necessarily in dynamic search.

Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Attention Perception & Psychophysics (Impact Factor: 2.15). 01/2010; 72(1):76-85. DOI: 10.3758/APP.72.1.76
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT If and when search involves the serial inspection of items by covert or overt attention, its efficiency would be enhanced by a mechanism that would discourage re-inspections of items or regions of the display that had already been examined. Klein (1988, 2000; Klein & Dukewich, 2006) proposed that inhibition of return (IOR) might be such a mechanism. The present experiments explored this proposal by combining a dynamic search task (Horowitz & Wolfe, 1998, 2003) with a probe-detection task. IOR was observed when search was most efficient (static and slower dynamic search). IOR was not observed when search performance was less efficient (fast dynamic search).These findings are consistent with the "foraging facilitator" proposal of IOR and are unpredicted by theories of search that assume parallel accumulation of information across the array (plus noise) as a general explanation for the effect of set size upon search performance.

Download full-text


Available from: Raymond M Klein, May 12, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Studies that followed the covert and overt probe-following-search paradigms of Klein (1988) and Klein and MacInnes (1999) to explore inhibition of return (IOR) in search are analyzed and evaluated. An IOR effect is consistently observed when the search display (or scene) remains visible when probing and lasts for at least 1000ms or about four previous inspected items (or locations). These findings support the idea that IOR facilitates foraging by discouraging orienting toward previously examined regions and items. Methodological and conceptual issues are discussed leading to methodological recommendations and suggestions for experimentation.
    Vision research 11/2009; 50(2):220-8. DOI:10.1016/j.visres.2009.11.013 · 2.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Several theories and models of visual search assume that inhibitory tagging of items is used to improve the efficiency of the search process, by discouraging revisits of previously inspected and rejected items. Therefore, search should become less efficient when the search display consists of moving items. In four experiments this hypothesis was tested. In the first two experiments there was no difference between search amongst static and moving items even though motion conditions were blocked (Experiment 1), or displays contained up to 36 items (Experiment 2). However, in Experiments 3 and 4, where the items used in the search display forced the participants to keep track of individual items performance dropped when the items moved. Visual search showed a remarkable robustness against motion, which current theories and models of visual search have difficulties to describe. Taken together, the results reported here indicate that there is a difference between the processes used in easier search and those used in search where items need to be individuated. A framework encompassing these results is proposed.
    Vision research 09/2010; 50(20):2069-79. DOI:10.1016/j.visres.2010.07.017 · 2.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Inhibition of return (IOR) facilitates visual search by discouraging the reinspection of recently processed items. We investigated whether IOR operates across two consecutive searches of the same display for different targets. In Experiment 1, we demonstrated that IOR is present within each of the two searches. In Experiment 2, we found no evidence for IOR across searches. In Experiment 3, we showed that IOR is present across the two searches when the first search is interrupted, suggesting that the completion of the search is what causes the resetting of IOR. We concluded that IOR is a partially flexible process that can be reset when the task completes, but not necessarily when it changes. When resetting occurs, this flexibility ensures that the inhibition of previously visited locations does not interfere with the new search.
    Attention Perception & Psychophysics 04/2011; 73(5):1385-97. DOI:10.3758/s13414-011-0127-5 · 2.15 Impact Factor