Aging and Temporal Patterns of Inhibition of Return

Department of Psychology, Center for Visual Neuroscience, North Dakota State University, 115 Minard Hall, Fargo, North Dakota 58105, USA.
The Journals of Gerontology Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences (Impact Factor: 3.21). 04/2007; 62(2):P71-7. DOI: 10.1093/geronb/62.2.P71
Source: PubMed


Inhibition of return (IOR), an inhibitory component of spatial attention that is thought to bias visual search toward novel
locations, is considered relatively well preserved with normal aging. We conducted two experiments to assess age-related changes
in the temporal pattern of IOR. Inhibitory effects, which were strongly reflected in the performance of both younger adults
(ages 18–34 years) and older adults (ages 60–79 years), diminished over a period of 5 s. The time point at which IOR began
to diminish was delayed by approximately 1 s for older adults compared with younger adults; this pattern was observed on both
a target detection task (Experiment 1) and a color discrimination task (Experiment 2). The finding that timing characteristics
of IOR are altered by normal aging has potential implications for the manner in which inhibition aids search performance.


Available from: Luis J Fuentes
  • Source
    • "Due to the well established visual asymmetries when the stimuli are presented along the vertical meridian (Karim & Kojima, 2010; Rezec & Dobkins, 2004; Thomas & Elias, 2011), and to the existence of previous results showing that these visual asymmetries also affect IOR (GutiØrrez-Domínguez et al., 2014), the data from each visual field were analyzed separately. As IOR onset is delayed in older adults, to ensure the elicitation of reliable IOR effects in these participants, a cue-totarget onset asynchrony (CTOA) of 2,000 ms, which has previously been found to activate IOR in young and older adults, was employed (Castel et al., 2003; Langley et al., 2007). With this design, to explore stimulus processing in the EEG activity, the ERPs to the cue (cue-locked ERPs) and to the target (target-locked ERPs) were analyzed. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Behavioral research has shown that Inhibition of Return (IOR) is preserved in old age although at longer time intervals between cue and target, which has been interpreted as reflecting a later disengagement from the cue. A recent event-related potential (ERP) study attributed this age-related pattern to an enhanced processing of the cue. Previous ERP research in young samples indicates that target and response processing are also affected by IOR, which makes interesting to study the ERP correlates of IOR from cue presentation to response execution. In this regard, in the present study stimulus-locked (cue-locked and target-locked) and response-locked ERPs were explored in healthy young and older participants. The behavioral results indicated preserved IOR in the older participants. The cue-locked ERPs could suggest that the older participants processed the cue as a warning signal to prepare for the upcoming target stimulus. Under IOR, target-locked ERPs of both age groups showed lower N1 amplitudes suggesting a suppression/inhibition of cued targets. During the P3 rising period, in young subjects a negative shift (Nd effect) to cued targets was observed in the lower visual field (LVF), and a positive shift (Pd effect) in the upper visual field. However, in the older group the Nd effect was absent suggesting a reduction of attentional resolution in the LVF. The older group showed enhanced motor activation to prepare correct responses, although IOR effects on response-locked lateralized readiness potential LRP indicated reduced response preparation to cued targets in both age groups. In general, results suggest that the older adults inhibit or reduce the visual processing of targets appearing at cued locations, and the preparation to respond to them, but with the added cost of allocating more attentional resources onto the cue and of maintaining a more effortful processing during the sequence of stimuli within the trial.
    Journal of Psychophysiology 09/2014; 28(3):105-123. DOI:10.1027/0269-8803/a000119 · 1.59 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "In other words, the deprivation-reduced vigilance conditions would affect those endogenous processes that lead to IOR rather than to IOR per se. This concept is further supported by IOR studies that used participants who show poor attentional control, such as patients diagnosed with schizophrenia (Fuentes, 2001; Mushquash, Fawcett, & Klein, 2012), the elderly (Castel, Chasteen, Scialfa, & Pratt, 2003, Langley et al., 2007), patients with Alzheimer's disease (Faust & Balota, 1997), and patients with Parkinson's disease (Poliakoff et al., 2003). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this study, we assessed whether unspecific attention processes signaled by general reaction times (RTs), as well as specific facilitatory (validity or facilitation effect) and inhibitory (inhibition of return, IOR) effects involved in the attentional orienting network, are affected by low vigilance due to both circadian factors and sleep deprivation (SD). Eighteen male participants performed a cuing task in which peripheral cues were nonpredictive about the target location and the cue-target interval varied at three levels: 200 ms, 800 ms, and 1,100 ms. Facilitation with the shortest and IOR with the longest cue-target intervals were observed in the baseline session, thus replicating previous related studies. Under SD condition, RTs were generally slower, indicating a reduction in the participants' arousal level. The inclusion of a phasic alerting tone in several trials partially compensated for the reduction in tonic alertness, but not with the longest cue-target interval. With regard to orienting, whereas the facilitation effect due to reflexive shifts of attention was preserved with sleep loss, the IOR was not observed. These results suggest that the decrease of vigilance produced by SD affects both the compensatory effects of phasic alerting and the endogenous component involved in disengaging attention from the cued location, a requisite for the IOR effect being observed.
    Experimental Psychology 08/2013; 61(2):1-11. DOI:10.1027/1618-3169/a000229 · 2.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Independent of these procedures, IOR has been found to be a very robust phenomenon that can be observed in various situations. It occurs not only in detection tasks but also in discrimination tasks (e.g., Lupianez, Milan, Tornay, Madrid, & Tuleda, 1997; Pratt & Castel, 2001), not only with manual responses but also with eye movement responses (Abrams & Dobkin, 1994), not only in static stimulus displays but also in a dynamic environment (Tipper, Weaver, Jerreat, & Burak, 1994), and not only in normal young adults but also in other age groups and in patients (Bao et al., 2004; Langley et al., 2007; Larrison-Faucher, Briand, & Sereno, 2002; MacPherson, Klein, & Moore, 2003). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Inhibition of return (IOR) as an indicator of attentional control is characterized by an eccentricity effect, that is, the more peripheral visual field shows a stronger IOR magnitude relative to the perifoveal visual field. However, it could be argued that this eccentricity effect may not be an attention effect, but due to cortical magnification. To test this possibility, we examined this eccentricity effect in two conditions: the same-size condition in which identical stimuli were used at different eccentricities, and the size-scaling condition in which stimuli were scaled according to the cortical magnification factor (M-scaling), thus stimuli being larger at the more peripheral locations. The results showed that the magnitude of IOR was significantly stronger in the peripheral relative to the perifoveal visual field, and this eccentricity effect was independent of the manipulation of stimulus size (same-size or size-scaling). These results suggest a robust eccentricity effect of IOR which cannot be eliminated by M-scaling. Underlying neural mechanisms of the eccentricity effect of IOR are discussed with respect to both cortical and subcortical structures mediating attentional control in the perifoveal and peripheral visual field.
    Experimental Psychology 07/2013; 60(6):1-7. DOI:10.1027/1618-3169/a000215 · 2.22 Impact Factor
Show more