No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
What Is Inhibited in Inhibition of Return?
Abstract
Research on temporal-order judgments, reference frames, discrimination tasks, and links to oculomotor control suggest important differences between inhibition of return (IOR) and attentional costs and benefits. Yet, it is generally assumed that IOR is an attentional effect even though there is little supporting evidence. The authors evaluated this assumption by examining how several factors that are known to influence attentional costs and benefits affect the magnitude of IOR: target modality, target intensity, and response mode. Results similar to those previously reported for attention were observed: IOR was greater for visual than for auditory targets, showed an inverse relationship with target intensity, and was equivalent for manual and saccadic responses. Important parallels between IOR and attentional costs and benefits are indicated, suggesting that, like attention, IOR may in part affect sensory-perceptual processes.
... Ce phénomène est appelé inhibition de retour (IOR). Certains auteurs pensent que l'IOR est un phénomène qui contrôle le déploiement spatial et temporel de l'attention involontaire (R. Rafal, Egly, & Rhodes, 1994;Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996 (Henderson, 1991). L'hypothèse de travail de ces études est que si l'IOR est un phénomène attentionnel, son absence devrait diminuer ce que sa présence facilite. ...
... Ainsi, l'IOR a été détectée lors de tâches de discrimination (Pratt & Abrams, 1995) (Gibson & Egeth, 1994). Par ailleurs, l'inhibition serait indépendante du mode de réponse et serait présente aussi bien lorsque la réponse est manuelle que saccadique (Reuter-Lorenz et al., 1996). ...
Visual attention is a critical process to a correct perception of our visual environment.This term includes all mechanisms involved in the selection of information in order to processit in priority. It is generally proposed that voluntary orientation of attentional capacity is a220slow and sustained process, while unvoluntary orientation is fast. We show here by apsychophysical study that voluntary orientation is in fact a rapid process that is easely maskedby others cognitiv process of general engagement.This phenomenon is sustained by a large network of cerebral areas, including the Frontal Eye Field (FEF), and the Lateral IntraParietal area (LIP). We recorded neuronal activity of 2monkey's FEF and LIP neuronal activity while they were engaged in a attentional task. Weshow here that these 2 areas play 2 crucial differents roles. Contrary to FEF, that is highlyinvolved in attentional orientation and engagement, LIP neuronal activity present few attentional modulations. LIP and FEF cells present large cognitive activities selectives to selection of the important event of the task. We hypothesis that FEF controles the voluntary orientation of visual attention while LIP detects the target.More over, we highly the existence of a new FEF's cell category involved in the executive control of cognitives function (as attentional).
... Others have argued that the IOR effect is an attentional effect rather than a perceptual effect (Reuter-Lorenz, Jha & Rosenquist, 1996). These authors assert that rather than inhibiting the perceptual system, IOR actually inhibits attention such that the system is unable to reorient to the cued location, resulting in slower processing. ...
... These authors demonstrated that variables known to influence performance on cueing tasks (modality, target intensity etc.) also had effects on IOR. Following from this, Reuter-Lorenz et al. (1996) reasoned that because the mechanism underlying cueing performance is generally thought to be attentional, then it follows that attention is likely to be the mechanism underlying IOR. ...
... An alter native view is that IOR is a truly atten tional perceptual phenomenon (Reuter-L orenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996). Reuter-L orenz et al. (1996) pointed out that if IOR is an attentional effect, its magnitu de should be affected by the same factors that u sually affect other attention al effects (e.g. ...
... An alter native view is that IOR is a truly atten tional perceptual phenomenon (Reuter-L orenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996). Reuter-L orenz et al. (1996) pointed out that if IOR is an attentional effect, its magnitu de should be affected by the same factors that u sually affect other attention al effects (e.g. costs and bene® ts from predictive cues). ...
In this study we examine the level at which inhibition of return (IOR) affects the processing of visual stimuli. Experiments 1 and 2 examined the effect of IOR on semantic priming. Experiments 3 and 4 examined the effect on flanker interference. In both cases IOR could reverse the standard effects. We suggest that when attention is drawn away from a location, there is temporary inhibitory tagging of stimuli that are presented there. This tagging extends to the semantic and response-relevant properties of stimuli, helping to bias attention away from old and towards new events. Due to inhibitory tagging, responses to new targets can be slowed down when targets are semantically related (Experiments 1 and 2) or require the same response (Experiments 3 and 4) as inhibited primes.
... An alter native view is that IOR is a truly atten tional perceptual phenomenon (Reuter-L orenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996). Reuter-L orenz et al. (1996) pointed out that if IOR is an attentional effect, its magnitu de should be affected by the same factors that u sually affect other attention al effects (e.g. ...
... An alter native view is that IOR is a truly atten tional perceptual phenomenon (Reuter-L orenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996). Reuter-L orenz et al. (1996) pointed out that if IOR is an attentional effect, its magnitu de should be affected by the same factors that u sually affect other attention al effects (e.g. costs and bene® ts from predictive cues). ...
In this study we examine the level at which inhibition of return (IOR) affects the processing of visual stimuli. Experiments 1 and 2 examined the effect of IOR on semantic priming. Experiments 3 and 4 examined the effect on flanker interference. In both cases IOR could reverse the standard effects. We suggest that when attention is drawn away from a location, there is temporary inhibitory tagging of stimuli that are presented there. This tagging extends to the semantic and response-relevant properties of stimuli, helping to bias attention away from old and towards new events. Due to inhibitory tagging, responses to new targets can be slowed down when targets are semantically related (Experiments 1 and 2) or require the same response (Experiments 3 and 4) as inhibited primes.
... Although the attentional account (Posner, Rafal, Choate, & Vaughan, 1985) has been the focus of most IOR research, recent studies have again highlighted the importance of sensory effects on IOR (e.g., Bell, Fecteau, & Munoz, 2004;Brown, 2009;Brown & Guenther, in preparation;Guenther, 2008;Guenther & Brown, under review;Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996;Sumner, 2006;Sumner, Nachev, Vora, Husain, & Kennard, 2004). ...
... Although this attentional account (Posner, et al., 1985) has been the focus of most IOR research, recent studies have again highlighted the importance of sensory effects on IOR (e.g. Bell, et al., 2004;Brown, 2009;Brown & Guenther, in preparation;Guenther, 2008;Guenther & Brown, under review;Reuter-Lorenz, et al., 1996;Sumner, 2006;Sumner, et al., 2004). ...
The steady/pulsed-pedestal paradigm has been shown to be an effective manipulation of relative magnocellular (M) and parvocellular (P) activity (e.g., Leonova, Pokorny, & Smith, 2003; McAnany & Levine, 2007). However, this manipulation has primarily been used with contrast sensitivity measures. The purposes of the present study were to evaluate the effectiveness of this manipulation using a simple reaction time (RT) measure and then test previous findings showing specific influences on space- and object-based attention under M- and P-biased conditions. Cuing studies investigating object-based attention have shown the cost for shifting attention within an object is less than equidistant shifts between two objects (object advantage = within-object RTs <between-object RTs). We previously reported this object advantage is eliminated under equiluminant (P-biased) conditions because of increased within-object RTs (Boyd, Guenther, & Brown, VSS 2007). The first experiment measured simple RTs to a square target presented at center screen on a square pedestal (20% catch trials) to see if the pulsed-pedestal would cause increased RTs expected from P-biased conditions. The steady/pulsed-pedestal manipulation produced reliable differences in RTs consistent with M- and P-biased conditions with overall RTs longer for the pulsed (P-biased) compared to the steady (M-biased) pedestal condition. A second experiment tested for an object advantage using pairs of rectangular bars (tilted 45° left or right of vertical) as objects. Again overall RTs were greater for pulsed compared to steady pedestal conditions. A similar magnitude validity effect (valid RTs <invalid RTs) was found for both conditions indicating that, in general, the pulsed condition did not interfere with shifting attention. However, the pulsed condition had a greater influence on RTs for within- compared to between-object shifts. Similar to our previous study, RTs for within-object shifts increased for P-biased conditions eliminating the object advantage.
... Second, IOR can occur in tasks that require choice responses based on discrimination of perceptual features (Cheal, Chastain, & Lyon, 1998;Pratt, 1995;Pratt, Kingstone, & Khoe, 1997; but see Klein & Taylor, 1994;Terry, Valdes, & Neill, 1994). Third, several important parallels between IOR and attentional costs and benefits have been discovered, suggesting that IOR, like attention, may influence perceptual processes by inhibiting attention from returning to previously cued locations (Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996). ...
... Our results are consistent with several pos-sible mechanisms as the source of this suppression. These mechanisms include modulation of attention to stimuli at the cued location (e.g., Reuter-Lorenz et al., 1996), oculomotor preparation (Rafal et al., 1989), and oculomotor suppression (Tassinari et al., 1987). We speculate that the posterior Nd reflects a sensory component of IOR, whereas the P1 reduction reflects an attentional component of IOR (see Tassinari & Berlucchi, 1993). ...
... They showed that IOR was completely absent when the cues and targets were identical in identity and orientation (i.e., the physical similarity between the cue and target led to the modulations of cueing effects). Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, and Rosenquist (1996) also studied the effects of target intensity, target modality, and response modality on the magnitude of IOR in a detection task. They reported that IOR was larger when target luminance was low than when it was high, and when the target modality was visual rather than auditory. ...
... Attentional orienting produced by spatially noninformative peripheral cueing is considered involuntary, because there is no incentive to maintain attention at the cued location. However, this type of orienting is far from being automatic (Ruz & Lupiáñez, 2002), as it is modulated by many variables, such as the timing between cue and target, the task demands, target modality, target intensity, cue type, the presence of intervening events, and so forth (see, e.g., Kingstone & Pratt, 1999;Maruff et al., 1999;Pratt & Fischer, 2002;Prime et al., 2006;Reuter-Lorenz et al., 1996;Snowden et al., 2001;Taylor & Donnelly, 2002;see Lupiáñez, 2010, for a review). A review of the literature (see the introduction) revealed that we have acquired some knowledge about the modulation of cueing effects by some of these variables, although they have not yet been jointly studied in a systematic way. ...
Inhibition of return (IOR) consists of slower reaction times in response to stimuli appearing at previously attended or inspected locations. The exact mechanisms underlying the effect have not yet been determined. In the present work, we manipulated two variables, target duration and intervening event (fixation cue between cue and target), through which we modulated the IOR effect as a function of task. When the target was presented until response, the presence of an intervening event made the cueing effect more negative in all tasks, although facilitation in the absence of an intervening event was only observed in discrimination and go-no-go tasks. When the target duration was 50 ms, the effect of the intervening event on cueing was also only observed for the discrimination and go-no-go tasks. Target duration had no effect at all in the discrimination task. Possible mechanisms for these modulations (detection cost and spatial selection benefit, both of which are based on cue-target integration processes) are discussed.
... More specifically, to investigate cross-modal interactions, some authors adopted a cross-modal cue-target paradigm, in which attending to a cue in one modality would delay the response in the other modality, especially if the temporal distance between the cue and the target is longer than a given stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) or if a neural cue is interposed. This phenomenon has been called ''cross-modal repetition inhibition'' (Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996;Wang, Yue, & Chen, 2012;Wu et al., 2019). We can thus speculate that the proposed neural circuit may be part of an attention control mechanism, which works to solve conflict and/or to improve flexibly by switching attention. ...
In a simple reaction time task in which auditory and visual stimuli are presented in random sequence alone (A or V) or together (AV), there is a so-called reaction time (RT) cost on trials in which sensory modality switches (A→V) compared to when it repeats (A→A). This is always true for unisensory trials, whereas RTs to AV stimuli preceded by unisensory stimuli are statistically comparable with the Repeat condition (AV→AV). Neural facilitation for Repeat trials or neural inhibition for Switch trials could both account for these effects. Here we used a neural network model (Multisensory Integration with Crossed Inhibitory Dynamics (MICID) model) to test the ability of these two distinct mechanisms, inhibition and facilitation, to produce the specific patterns of behavior that we see experimentally, modeling switch and repeat trials as well as the influence of the interval between the present and the previous trial. The model results are consistent with an inhibitory account in which there is competition between the different sensory modalities, instead of a facilitation account in which the preceding stimulus sensitizes the neural system to its particular sensory modality. Moreover, the model shows that multisensory integration can explain the results in case of multisensory stimuli, where the preceding stimulus has little effect. This is due to faster dynamics for multisensory facilitation compared to cross-sensory inhibition. These findings link the cognitive framework delineated by the empirical results to a plausible neural implementation.
... Rather, lOR seems to reflect a bias against re allocating attention to the cued object/location (e.g. Handy, Jha & Mangun, 1999;Posner & Cohen, 1984;Reuter-Lorenz, Jha & Rosenquist, 1996) or a bias against preparing a response to the cued object/location (e.g. Klein & Taylor, 1994;Taylor & Klein, 1998). ...
Recent work has shown that the extent to which irrelevant distractors are perceived is determined by the level of perceptual load in relevant processing. While high perceptual load typically reduces distractor perception, low perceptual load typically results in perception of irrelevant distractors (see Lavie, 2001 for review). Thus in situations of low perceptual load, response tendencies toward the perceived yet irrelevant distractors must be prevented from leading to unwanted responses. This thesis provides a new line of behavioural evidence for the suggestion that selective attention involves inhibition of response tendencies to perceived distractors in situations of low perceptual load. Specifically, the present studies examined whether engaging response inhibition in one task would lead to greater response competition effects from irrelevant distractors on responses in a subsequent flanker task. We designed a new paradigm in which a flanker task was preceded by a response inhibition task on each trial. Response inhibition was manipulated either by varying the demand to make a response or to stop it (using a stop signal task - Chapter 2); or by varying the spatial congruency of the mapping between stimuli and responses (Chapter 3); or by varying the congruency between relevant and irrelevant dimensions in a Stroop colour word task (Chapter 4). The results suggest that the engagement of inhibition in the first task of each trial reduces the efficiency with which response tendencies to distractors were suppressed in the following flanker task. Carry-over effects of inhibition were dissociated from the effects of the general difficulty of Task 1; were found to persist across an interval of several seconds between the first and second tasks; and were also found to occur only in situations of low perceptual load. These findings thus provide new support for the suggestion that active inhibition is involved in selective attention.
... Indeed, some authors recognised that diVerent mechanisms underlie inhibitory and excitatory components of attention (e.g., Houghton, Tipper, Weaver, & Shore, 1996). Others even questioned the idea that negative priming (e.g., May, Kane, & Hasher, 1995) and inhibition of return (e.g., Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996;Terry, Valdes, & Neill, 1994) operate at the level of attentional selection. ...
The authors propose a distinction between four issues underlying the debate on the status of location in visual selective attention. Three of them concern the representation within which attention operates. The grouping question focuses on whether or not this representation segments the visual field into perceptual groups. The space-invariance question focuses on whether it describes objects in spatio-topic or in space-invariant coordinates. Finally, the feature-coding question concerns whether or not it contains information about objects' non-spatial features. The last issue focuses on whether or not attention can be guided preattentively towards items possessing certain pre-specified physical properties other than location, and is referred to as the attentional-guidance question. A critical survey of the literature within the proposed framework is presented. Based on its conclusions, the status of location in current research is outlined, and avenues for further research are suggested.
... First, corrective saccades toward a previously fixated target could be executed more slowly because of inhibition of return (IOR; see Klein, 2000). IOR is the slowed response (after approximately 200 ms) to previously exogenously attended stimuli (Posner & Cohen, 1984), and is present for both saccadic and manual responses (Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996). These effects are tied to objects (instead of to retinal coordinates), as is illustrated by IOR effects at the l o c a t i o n s o f m o v i n g o b j e c t s ( Ta s , D o d d , & Hollingworth, 2010;Tipper, Driver, & Weaver, 1991;Tipper, Weaver, Jerreat, & Burak, 1994). ...
One of the factors contributing to a seamless visual experience is object correspondence—that is, the integration of pre- and postsaccadic visual object information into one representation. Previous research had suggested that before the execution of a saccade, a target object is loaded into visual working memory and subsequently is used to locate the target object after the saccade. Until now, studies on object correspondence have not taken previous fixations into account. In the present study, we investigated the influence of previously fixated information on object correspondence. To this end, we adapted a gaze correction paradigm in which a saccade was executed toward either a previously fixated or a novel target. During the saccade, the stimuli were displaced such that the participant’s gaze landed between the target stimulus and a distractor. Participants then executed a corrective saccade to the target. The results indicated that these corrective saccades had lower latencies toward previously fixated than toward nonfixated targets, indicating object-specific facilitation. In two follow-up experiments, we showed that presaccadic spatial and object (surface feature) information can contribute separately to the execution of a corrective saccade, as well as in conjunction. Whereas the execution of a corrective saccade to a previously fixated target object at a previously fixated location is slowed down (i.e., inhibition of return), corrective saccades toward either a previously fixated target object or a previously fixated location are facilitated. We concluded that corrective saccades are executed on the basis of object files rather than of unintegrated feature information.
... Other than reaction time, IOR may also affect sensory-perceptual processes and thereby influence performance on certain discrimination tasks (Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996). Research has indicated a reduced ability for human observers to discriminate contrast differences at a location associated with IOR (Sapir, Jackson, Butler, Paul, & Abrams, 2013). ...
A limited amount of visual information is retained between saccades, which is subsequently stored into a memory system, such as transsaccadic memory. Since the capacity of transsaccadic memory is limited, selection of information is crucial. Selection of relevant information is modulated by attentional processes such as the presaccadic shift of attention. This involuntary shift of attention occurs prior to execution of the saccade and leads to information acquisition at an intended saccade target. The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence that another attentional effect, inhibition of return (IOR), has on the information that gets stored into transsaccadic memory. IOR is the phenomenon where participants are slower to respond to a cue at a previously attended location. To this end, we used a transsaccadic memory paradigm in which stimuli, oriented on a horizontal axis relative to saccade direction, are only visible to the participant before executing a saccade. Previous research showed that items in close proximity to a saccade target are likely to be reported more accurately. In our current study, participants were cued to fixate one of the stimulus locations and subsequently refixated the centre fixation point before executing the transsaccadic memory task. Results indicate that information at a location near a saccade landing point is less likely to be acquired into transsaccadic memory when this location was previously associated with IOR. Furthermore, we found evidence which implicates a reduction of the overall amount of elements retained in transsaccadic memory when a location near a saccade target is associated with IOR. These results suggest that the presaccadic shift of attention may be modulated by IOR and thereby reduces information acquisition by transsaccadic memory.
... In this situation RT was facilitated at the cued location even at relatively long cue-target intervals suggesting that endogenous orienting was committed to and maintained at the location predicted by the cue. Although the view that attention per se is a necessary process in the IOR effect has since been challenged (Taylor & Klein, 1998;2000), there is ample evidence to suggest that exogenous attentional orienting contributes to the IOR effect (Kingstone & Pratt, 1998;Abrams & Dobkin, 1994;Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996;Handy, Jha, & Mangun, 1999). ...
Response time to visual targets at peripheral locations can be delayed if the target location was previously cued, a phenomenon called inhibition of return (IOR). Given that IOR is found under what are assumed to be conditions of exogenous (reflexive), but not endogenous (volitional) covert attentional orienting, it is accepted that the IOR effect is the result of a cognitive mechanism that operates at an exogenous, stimulus-driven level. The cue in a classic IOR target detection task does, however, have a predictable temporal relationship with the target, which is evidenced by a foreperiod effect - decreasing RTs with increasing cue-target interval. Thus, whether or not the endogenous attentional system plays a role in the IOR effect remains unclear. The present study tested whether endogenous attentional mechanisms play a role in IOR by systematically decreasing the utility of the cue for preparing for target onset. This was achieved by presenting trials in which peripheral cues were not followed by targets (false alarms) on 0%, 5% or 25% of trials. Overall cue-target contingency was controlled by presenting trials without a peripheral cue preceding the target (misses) on 5% or 25% of trials. By eliminating the temporal utility of the cue, and thus removing a component of endogenous preparation, the IOR effect was attenuated, but not eliminated. The results suggest, contrary to widespread assumptions, that IOR is not solely an exogenous phenomenon, but is sensitive to contributions from endogenous mechanisms. The nature of this endogenous component of IOR is discussed with respect to existing literature as well as the current findings.
A critical role for endogenous processes in inhibition of return. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277766181_A_critical_role_for_endogenous_processes_in_inhibition_of_return [accessed Feb 1, 2016].
... Despite this, conflicting empirical results and interpretations have abounded. Consequently, current opinions in the field vacillate considerably as to whether IOR exerts its influence distinctly over attentional/perceptual systems (Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996), motoric systems (Klein, & Taylor, 1994;Taylor, & Klein, 1998); or some combination of the two (Abrams, & Dobkin, 1994a;Taylor, & Klein, 2000). ...
The most common conceptualization of inhibition of return (IOR) is the robust finding of increased response times for saccadic or manual response times to targets that appear at previously cued locations following a cue-target interval exceeding ∼300 ms in the classic Posner cueing paradigm. Investigative work has explored variants on this cue-target paradigm to determine the extent to which IOR might comprise one or several largely orthogonal components. In a variation on this paradigm, Abrams and Dobkin (1994) presented a directional arrow at fixation as the imperative stimulus for a saccadic response to a placeholder that had previously been cued or uncued. In separate blocks the standard peripheral target was used. The key finding was that the magnitude of IOR was greater when a saccadic response was made to a peripheral than to a central arrow. It was concluded that saccadic responses to peripheral targets comprise motoric and perceptual components (the two components theory for IOR) whereas saccadic responses to a central target comprise a single motoric component. In contrast to the foregoing findings, Taylor and Klein (2000) discovered that IOR was equivalent for central and peripheral targets when these were randomly intermixed suggesting a single, motoric, flavor under these conditions. To resolve the apparent discrepancy, a strict replication of Abrams and Dobkin was conducted central and peripheral targets were either blocked or mixed. In the blocked design, peripheral targets resulted in more IOR than central targets, while in the mixed design, target type had no bearing on the magnitude of IOR. The blocked design creates untoward spatial expectancies for the target that can differentially affect the extent to which non-informative peripheral cues are processed; in other words, the blocked design allows two different attentional control settings, a confound that “masqueraded” as two components of IOR.
... Klein and Taylor, 1994;Posner et al. 1985), and cognitive/attentional (c.f. Hunt & Kingstone, 2003;Reuter-Lorenz et al., 1996) (see also Berlucchi (2006) for a discussion of IOR components with these categories). ...
In a study of scientific nomenclature, we explore the diversity of perspectives researchers endorse for the phenomenon of inhibition of return (IOR). IOR is often described as an effect whereby people are slower to respond to a target presented at a recently stimulated or inspected location as compared to a target presented at a new location. Since its discovery, scores of papers have been published on IOR, and researchers have proposed, accepted and rejected a variety of potential causes, mechanisms, effects and components for the phenomenon. Experts in IOR were surveyed about their opinions regarding various aspects of IOR and the literature exploring it. We found variety both between and within experts surveyed, suggesting that most researchers hold implicit, and often quite unique assumptions about IOR. These widely varied assumptions may be hindering the creation or acceptance of a central theoretical framework regarding IOR; and this variety may portend that what has been given the label "IOR" may be more than one phenomenon requiring more than one theoretical explanation. We wonder whether scientific progress in domains other than IOR might be affected by too broad (or perhaps too narrow) a range of phenomena to which our nomenclature is applied.
... In their task, participants were asked to make a saccade to a lateralised target in half of the blocks and to make a button press, left or right congruently with target location, in the other half of the blocks. Previous literature, in particular Reuter-lorenz, Jha and Rosenquist (1996), already showed that IOR interacts with target luminance but not with response modality, providing grounds for an attentional effect on target processing. On the other hand, Abrams and Dobkin (1994) successfully dissociating the two components of IOR and providing support for the distinction between attentional shifts and motor programming. ...
... ). Spalek and Hammad presented white stimuli on a black background, whereas in the current study we presented black stimuli on a white background. Past research has demonstrated the potential for background luminance and possibly target-background polarity to affect the specific characteristics of IOR observed(Hunt & Kingstone, 2003;Reuter-Lorenz, Jha & Rosenquist 1996;Souto & Kerzel, 2009), so it is not unreasonable to expect that this may be the source of the difference in IOR magnitude observed. ...
... In contrast, IOR as measured by manual responses has been associated with an "attentional" form of IOR, that is, an impediment in shifts of attention to previously visited locations, with a locus in cortical areas linked with attention and perception (see Klein, 2000 for a review). Consistent with this, manual IOR (but not saccadic IOR) interacts with target luminance (Hunt & Kingstone, 2003;Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996). Thus multiple sources of IOR may exist in parallel, and response modality is one way of dissociating them. ...
Responses tend to be slower to previously fixated spatial locations, an effect known as "inhibition of return" (IOR). Saccades cannot be assumed to be independent, however, and saccade sequences programmed in parallel differ from independent eye movements. We measured the speed of both saccadic and manual responses to probes appearing in previously fixated locations when those locations were fixated as part of either parallel or independent saccade sequences. Saccadic IOR was observed in independent but not parallel saccade sequences, while manual IOR was present in both parallel and independent sequence types. Saccadic IOR was also short-lived, and dissipated with delays of more than ∼1500 ms between the intermediate fixation and the probe onset. The results confirm that the characteristics of IOR depend critically on the response modality used for measuring it, with saccadic and manual responses giving rise to motor and attentional forms of IOR, respectively. Saccadic IOR is relatively short-lived and is not observed at intermediate locations of parallel saccade sequences, while attentional IOR is long-lasting and consistent for all sequence types.
... However, when the cue-target interval is longer than 300 milliseconds, detection is slower at the cued location. As the term inhibition of return was intended to suggest, attention may be inhibited from reorienting back to the cued location, resulting in delayed OJ slower processing there (e.g., Rafal, Egly, & Rhodes, 1994;Reuter-Lorenz~ Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996). ...
Everyone knows what inhibition is-and that creates a very real problem. The idea is so ingrained that it is difficult to discuss it as a scientific concept without contamination from existing world knowledge. Yet discussing it is exactly what cognitive scientists have been attempting to do with renewed vigor in the recent past, owing to at least three factors: the growth of cognitive neuroscience, developments in cognitive modeling, and newly described cognitive phenomena. Beginning with the phenomenon of negative priming (for reviews, see Fox, 1995; May, Kane, & Hasher, 1995; Tipper, 2001) and spurred by two influential books that appeared in quick succession just over a decade ago (Dagenbach & Carr, 1994; Dempster & Brainerd, 1995), interest in cognitive inhibition grew. Of course, the desire to mesh cognition with neuroscience also has provided a powerful impetus for understanding the place of inhibition in the current conceptualization of mind and brain. This interest is well illustrated by the inclusion of inhibition as one of only 16 core concepts in a recent effort to grapple with concepts-free of empirical research findings-that are fundamental to memory (Roediger, Dudai, & Fitzpatrick, in press). This chapter is intended as a broad introduction to the concept of inhibition in cognition and consequently to this book as a whole. For this reason, I take no strong stand on the value of the concept (although I have expressed a skeptical point of view elsewhere; see MacLeod, in press; MacLeod, Dodd, Sheard, Wilson, & Bibi, 2003). In this chapter, the goal is to set out the issues involved in the empirical study and theoretical understanding of the concept of inhibition as it applies to the operation of cognition. So I begin with what this chapter is and is not about. This chapter is not about the neural concept of inhibition: It is accepted that neurons certainly can inhibit each other.
... A second difference distinguishing the two cueings regards their time-course properties (Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996). Typically, when a target appears within 100 msec following an exogenous cue, target detection is facilitated, whereas when the same target is presented 300 msec after the cue, target detection is inhibited (although after a few hundred milliseconds the facilitation can occur and last for 3-5 seconds). ...
... Research clearly demonstrates a motor component of IOR (see Taylor & Klein, 1998, for a review). However, there is evidence for an attentional component as well (see Gibson & Egeth, 1994;Kingstone & Pratt, 1999;Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996). The debate surrounding this issue is beyond the scope of this research. ...
Olds, Cowan and Jolicoeur (2000) showed that although the mechanisms underlying visual search have traditionally been assumed to be independent. in fact they interact. Using coloured disk stimuli, they interrupted pop-out search (target plus Dl distractors) by adding more distractors (D2s) of a different colour to the display before pop-out processes were able to find the target. In short, partially completed pop-out processes facilitated subsequent difficult search processes (“search assistance"). The present study investigated hypotheses for this interaction. In Experiments 1 and 2, we used methods aimed at determining where the bulk of attentional resources are allocated during search of a visual display assumed to produce search assistance (by measuring the effect of inhibition of return [IOR] between DI and D2 locations). In Experiment 1, we first presented observers with a search task that has been shown to produce search assistance (using coloured disks: see Olds et al., 2000). Immediately following target response, observers had to determine as quickly and accurately as possible whether a small probe-dot (that appeared on one of the disks) was present or absent. The results of Experiment 1 provided tentative support for a negative prioritisation hypothesis which proposed that some initial distractors (Dls) are eliminated from consideration during the second portion of the display. The sequence of events in Experiment 2 were identical to that of Experiment 1 except that, following target response, observers had to make a temporal order judgement (TOJ) as to which of two physically simultaneous lines (one on a Dl, and one on a D2) appeared first. The results of Experiment 2 did not support either of the hypotheses regarding the nature of search assistance. Experiment 3 examined the effect of spatial cues on difficult search by attempting to eliminate the effect of negative prioritisation while measuring the effect of positive prioritisation. The results of Experiment 3 provided evidence in support of a positive prioritisation hypothesis which proposed that the initial items are more likely to be searched in the second portion of the display. Future research is discussed.
... Although the IOR effect has been extensively studied, there is no unanimously accepted explanation of its underlying mechanisms. It has been suggested that the inhibitory mechanisms operate at both attention and perception, presumably influencing sensory-perceptual systems (e.g., Prime & Ward, 2004;Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996). There is also accumulating evidence that the inhibitory mechanisms influence response planning (Godjin & Theeuwes, 2004;Klein & Taylor, 1994;McSorley et al., 2006;Neyedli & Welsh, 2012) and selection (Gilchrist & Harvey, 2000;Klein, 1988;Klein & MacInnes, 1999). ...
ABSTRACT Social inhibition of return (S-IOR) refers to the finding that reaction times (RTs) are longer for movements to the same location as a partner's previous response. Wilson and Pratt (2007) found that when people acting alone freely chose their responses, they were less likely to choose a response that was spatially-compatible with a recently presented stimulus, suggesting that the processes underlying IOR effects in RT also affect response selection. The current study investigated if a similar response selection bias would occur in a free-choice S-IOR task. It was found that participants were less likely to move to the location that their partner previously contacted. This similarity in responses biases in free-choice tasks is generally consistent with the notion that similar processes underlie individual and S-IOR.
... Hunt and Kingstone ( 2003 ) also examined IOR as a function of the luminance of the target with manual and saccadic responses. Completing a conceptual double dissociation they found an additive pattern between cuing and target luminance when the responses were saccadic, and (replicating Reuter-Lorenz et al., 1996 ) an interaction (greater IOR with dimmer targets) when responses were manual. ...
A mechanism referred to as inhibition of return (IOR) was proposed by Michael Posner and colleagues (Posner and Cohen, 1984; Posner et al., 1985) to account for delayed responses to stimuli presented in previously attended regions or on previously attended objects. This increase in response times is intricately linked to the orienting machinery of the oculomotor system and, as such, it was proposed that IOR plays a crucial role in facilitating search behaviour. Properties of IOR that have been identified using a simple cuing paradigm (e.g. IOR can be coded in environmental and object coordinates) are consistent with this functional interpretation. The interaction of IOR with oculomotor phenomena is reviewed with an emphasis on how orienting behaviour is modulated by IOR. Studies using a wide variety of methods demonstrate that fixations that return gaze to a recently fixated region (even when these refixations occur more frequently than chance) suffer a temporal cost, no doubt because whatever processes encourages the return of attention must overcome the inhibitory traces left behind by prior orienting.
... Since the discovery of IOR, extensive research has demonstrated the robustness of this effect, and accordingly, it has been observed reliably for ballistic eye movements (saccades) and manual keypress responses to precued targets in a rich assortment of tasks that have exploited variations on the cue–target paradigm (synonymously referred to as the model task or Posner cuing paradigm). One focus of these variations has been a dedicated effort (Abrams & Dobkin, 1994b; Chica, Taylor, Lupiáñez, & Klein, 2010; Kingstone & Pratt, 1999; Pratt & Neggers, 2008; Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996; Taylor & Klein, 2000) to determine the extent to which IOR's effects on performance are primarily on the input or the output 1 end of the processing continuum. Two (additive) components of IOR's effect on saccadic responses? ...
... Since the discovery of IOR, extensive research has demonstrated the robustness of this effect, and accordingly, it has been observed reliably for ballistic eye movements (saccades) and manual keypress responses to precued targets in a rich assortment of tasks that have exploited variations on the cue–target paradigm (synonymously referred to as the model task or Posner cuing paradigm). One focus of these variations has been a dedicated effort (Abrams & Dobkin, 1994b; Chica, Taylor, Lupiáñez, & Klein, 2010; Kingstone & Pratt, 1999; Pratt & Neggers, 2008; Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996; Taylor & Klein, 2000) to determine the extent to which IOR's effects on performance are primarily on the input or the output 1 end of the processing continuum. Two (additive) components of IOR's effect on saccadic responses? ...
... Another possible explanation for the current findings regarding the moderating effects of delay is that of inhibition of return. Handy, Jha, and Mangun (1999) suggest that inhibition of return impedes attention back to recently attended locations (see also, Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996). That is, that a fixation cross would first enhance processing at a particular location then inhibition of return prevents returning to that location, thus causing it to be less well processed (Briand, Larrison, & Sereno, 2000). ...
Hills and Lewis (2006) reduced White participants' own-race bias (ORB) in face recognition by training them to attend to features critical for Black faces (lower portion of the face). Here, the ORB was investigated following a brief fixation cross either in the upper portion of the face (critical for White faces) or the lower portion of the face. Results showed that when the cross preceded the lower portion of the face, Black faces were recognized more accurately than White faces and vice versa when it preceded the upper portion of the face. A second experiment demonstrated that this effect disappears if the participants are forced to delay their responses by 4 s. These results suggest that an immediate attentional mechanism can attenuate the ORB when immediate attention is paid to diagnostic features but this can be overridden with increased time spent viewing faces.
... At longer stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs), target-detection latencies are longer on valid-cue trials than on invalid-cue trials (e.g., Maylor, 1985;Maylor & Hockey, 1985;Posner & Cohen, 1984;Tassinari, Aglioti, Chelazzi, Marzi, & Berlucchi, 1987). Some investigators have proposed that this effect, called inhibition of return (IOR), is produced when attention is summoned to the cued location and then moved to a new location (e.g., Maylor & Hockey, 1985;Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996). However, IOR does not normally occur when attention is oriented in response to symbolic cues, which implies that covert orienting alone is not sufficient to generate IOR. ...
Eight experiments examined the conditions necessary for covert orienting and inhibition of return (IOR) to occur in audition. Spatially uninformative auditory cues facilitated responses to auditory targets at short stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) and inhibited them at longer SOAs when the decision to respond was based on the location of the target (Experiments 1, 3, and 4). The same cues did not influence performance when the decision to respond was based on nonspatial criteria (Experiments 2, 5, and 7) unless the cues predicted the location of the target (Experiment 6). In the absence of cues, the location of a previous target influenced performance when the decision to respond was based on spatial, but not nonspatial, criteria (Experiment 8). These findings demonstrate that covert orienting and IOR occur in audition only when spatial relevance is established, presumably inducing use of location-sensitive neurons in generating responses. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
... Whereas there is general agreement that oculomotor programming is involved in causing IOR, researchers have debated whether IOR, once caused, directly affects input processes (e.g., Handy, Jha, and Mangun, 1999), attention (e.g., Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, and Rosenquist, 1996) or motor processes (Tassinari et al., 1987;Klein and Taylor,1994;Ivanoff and Klein, 2001), with evidence in favour of one locus usually accepted as evidence against the others. Because there is strong evidence for effects of IOR on both early, stimulus-encoding and later, response-selection stages of processing, a more fruitful strategy might be to determine the boundary conditions for eliciting effects at these different loci. ...
The behavioral properties of an inhibitory aftermath of exogenous orienting, which has come to be called "inhibition of return," and then our growing understanding of its neural implementation are described. IOR is generated by oculomotor activity and it affects subsequent orienting and other spatial responding. The effect is local, graded, and coded in environmental or, when a cued object moves, in object-based, coordinates. Several locations or objects can be tagged simultaneously. By discouraging attention from returning to previously inspected objects or locations IOR serves as a search or foraging facilitator. Neuroscientific studies suggest that IOR, when generated using the model cuing task pioneered by Posner, begins with the presentation of the cue but is not seen in behavior until attention is disengaged from the cue, thus removing attention-related facilitation. Neuropsychological and developmental studies point to the superior colliculus as critical in me generation of IOR. Studies of human brain electrical activity suggest that the effects of IOR begin early in target processing, and single unit studies reveal a reduction in the strength of sensory signals reaching the superior colliculus, though the colliculus itself does not appear to be inhibited. Cortical circuits are necessary for object coding of IOR, and environmental coding of IOR depends on circuits in the right parietal lobe. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
... However, as a behavioral phenomenon affecting eye movements, the evidence for IOR is based almost exclusively on observations of saccade latency: fixations that precede an eye movement back to a previous location tend to be of longer than average duration (Farrell, Ludwig, Ellis, & Gilchrist, 2010;Hooge & Frens, 2000;Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996;Vaughan, 1984). By contrast, studies examining the frequency of return saccades in naturalistic scenes seem to contradict the hypothesis that IOR acts as a ''foraging facilitator'' (Klein, 2000). ...
Active exploration of the visual world depends on sequential shifts of gaze that bring prioritized regions of a scene into central vision. The efficiency of this system is commonly attributed to a mechanism of "inhibition of return" (IOR) that discourages re-examination of previously-visited locations. Such a process is fundamental to computational models of attentional selection and paralleled by neurophysiological observations of inhibition of target-related activity in visuomotor areas. However, studies examining eye movements in naturalistic visual scenes appear to contradict the hypothesis that IOR promotes exploration. Instead, these reports reveal a surprisingly strong tendency to shift gaze back to the previously fixated location, suggesting that refixations might even be facilitated under natural conditions. Here we resolve this apparent contradiction, based on a probabilistic analysis of gaze patterns recorded during both free-viewing and search of naturalistic scenes. By simulating saccadic selection based on instantaneous influences alone, we show that the observed frequency of return saccades is in fact substantially less than predicted for a memoryless system, demonstrating that refixation is actively inhibited under natural viewing conditions. Furthermore, these observations reveal that gaze history significantly influences the way in which natural scenes are explored, contrary to accounts that suggest visual search has no memory.
... However, if the cue is uninformative with regard to the location of the subsequent target and if the cue-to-target onset asynchrony (CTOA) is longer than 300 ms, this initial facilitatory effect is switched to an inhibitory effect (Posner & Cohen, 1984), that is, responses being slower to the target at the cued location than at the uncued one. This phenomenon, termed "inhibition of return" (IOR), is thought to facilitate visual foraging behavior (Kingstone, 2000(Kingstone, , 2007Klein, 1988;Najemnik & Geisler, 2005;Thomas & Lleras, 2009) by preventing attention from returning to a previously attended (cued) location (McDonald, Hickey, Green, & Whitman, 2009;Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996). ...
Recent studies propose that a mechanism termed "inhibitory tagging" acts upon the processing of the target at the attended location by temporarily blocking the stimulus-response mapping. Here we combined the cue-target paradigm with the Stroop task and measured event-related potential (ERP) responses to the color of a color word presented at the previously attended (cued) or unattended (uncued) location. We found that the conflict-related N450 effect emerged later and had a smaller size at the cued than the uncued location. The overall ERP responses to the target showed lower P1 and N1 amplitude at the cued than the uncued location. Although the P1/N1 effect may reflect deficient perceptual processing of the target, the delay of the N450 suggests that the link between perceptual processing and response activation is temporarily blocked at the previously attended location.
... In the present study we used a location-based inhibition-of-return (IOR) paradigm to examine how the deployment of attention is influenced by stimulus characteristics expected to selectively activate the M and P streams. Location-based IOR is a phenomenon where, once attention is drawn to a cued location, responses to targets appearing there later are slower than to targets appearing at uncued locations, whether the shifts of attention are accompanied by eye movements or not (Kingstone and Pratt 1999;Rafal et al 1989;Reuter-Lorenz et al 1996). Different spatial and temporal parameters can influence whether facilitation is found at shorter stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) between cue and target (eg 5 300 ms) (Lambert and Hockey 1991;McAuliffe and Pratt 2005;Pratt et al 2001), but IOR is typically found at longer SOAs (eg 300^1500 ms) (eg see Klein 2000 for a review). ...
The roles of the parvocellular (P) and magnocellular (M) retino-geniculo-cortical pathways during shifts of visual attention were investigated by creating M/dorsal-biased (eg low spatial frequency target, no objects present) and P/ventral-biased (ie high spatial frequency target, the perception of 3-D objects) stimulus conditions and measuring location-based inhibition-of-return (IOR). P/ventral-biased conditions produced the greatest IOR. M/dorsal-biased conditions produced the least IOR, in one instance eliminating it altogether. The results indicate a close relationship between IOR magnitude and relative P/ventral and M/dorsal activity with location-based IOR related more to P/ventral than to M/dorsal activity.
... Subsequently, a variety of alternative proposals have been made. Investigators have proposed that the IOR is involved in the inhibition of perceptual processes (Handy et al. 1999;McDonald et al. 1999;Spalek and Di Lollo 2007), the covert deployment of attention Reuter-Lorenz et al. 1996), and the inhibition of response selection processes (Ivanoff and Klein 2001;Taylor and Klein 2000). According to a well-accepted hypothesis proposed by Klein (2000), called the reorienting hypothesis, after the initial attentional capture by the cue, attention is disengaged from the cued location and subsequently inhibited from returning to the recently cued location. ...
Although the inhibition of return (IOR) effect in exogenous orienting has been investigated extensively with the Posnerian cuing paradigm, there has been little evidence for the role of attentional processes in the IOR effect. The N2pc component was used as a marker of the deployment of spatial attention to isolate attentional processes in the IOR effect. Participants responded to task-relevant target displays that were preceded by cue displays in a non-predictive, exogenous cuing paradigm. A 1,000 ms of stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) was designed to investigate the IOR effect. Behavioral results indicate that the SOA was sufficiently long to cause an IOR effect in the discrimination task. As for ERP patterns elicited by targets, the N2pc amplitudes were similar across cue types, but the N2pc latency was delayed when targets appeared at the cued location rather than at the uncued location. N2pc patterns demonstrated that the spatial attentional process is indeed an important mechanism underlying the IOR effect. The delayed N2pc for targets in the valid cue type suggested that IOR effect may reflect a delayed deployment of spatial attention to targets appearing at recently cued locations.
With the recent sequencing of the human genome, the following question has attracted much interest: can the function of single genes be linked to specific neural and cognitive processes? Within this context, developmental disorders of known genetic origins have been used as naturally-occurring models to link the function (and dysfunction) of genes with cognition. Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is a genetically inherited disorder associated with the silencing of a single gene involved in experience-dependent changes at glutamatergic synapses. In adulthood, it is associated with core attentional difficulties accompanied by seemingly proficient visuo-perception, but the profile of infants and toddlers has not been investigated. In this thesis, fragile X syndrome is used as a tool to investigate how initial changes in a generalised property of all cortical neurones can nonetheless result, in the adult, in core difficulties in the control of attention. I argue that, even in disorders associated with the silencing of a single gene like FXS, the answer requires a developmental approach. Chapter 1 delineates a theoretical distinction between endogenous and exogenous influences on attentional control, whereas Chapter 2 defines methodological issues in assessing atypical attention, such as tools for the assessment of general developmental level and choices of control groups. Part II focuses on tasks tapping endogenous attention control. In particular, Chapters 3 and 4 examine the control of eye-movements and manual response conflict in infants and toddlers with FXS and in typically developing controls. In contrast, Part III concentrates on the exogenous effects of sudden peripheral onsets on visual orienting (Chapter 5) and of the perceptual salience of targets during visual search (Chapter 6). Finally, Part IV traces longitudinal changes in visual search performance. The findings suggest that, like adults with the syndrome, infant and toddlers with FXS display striking deficits in endogenous attention. However, unlike adults, infants are also characterised by atypical exogenous influences on attention and longitudinal changes in performance point to complex developmental relationships between early and later measures of attention. The findings are discussed in terms of their theoretical implications for fragile X syndrome and other developmental disorders affecting attention. They challenge the notion of direct genotype-phenotype mappings that fail to take development into account.
Microsaccades have a steady rate of occurrence during maintained gaze fixation, which gets transiently modulated by abrupt sensory stimuli. Such modulation, characterized by a rapid reduction in microsaccade frequency followed by a stronger rebound phase of high microsaccade rate, is often described as the microsaccadic rate signature, owing to its stereotyped nature. Here we investigated the impacts of stimulus polarity (luminance increments or luminance decrements relative to background luminance) and size on the microsaccadic rate signature. We presented brief visual flashes consisting of large or small white or black stimuli over an otherwise gray image background. Both large and small stimuli caused robust early microsaccadic inhibition, but only small ones caused a subsequent increase in microsaccade frequency above baseline microsaccade rate. Critically, small black stimuli were always associated with stronger modulations in microsaccade rate after stimulus onset than small white stimuli, particularly in the post-inhibition rebound phase of the microsaccadic rate signature. Because small stimuli were also associated with expected direction oscillations to and away from their locations of appearance, these stronger rate modulations in the rebound phase meant higher likelihoods of microsaccades opposite the black flash locations relative to the white flash locations. Our results demonstrate that the microsaccadic rate signature is sensitive to stimulus polarity, and they point to dissociable neural mechanisms underlying early microsaccadic inhibition after stimulus onset and later microsaccadic rate rebound at longer times thereafter. These results also demonstrate early access of oculomotor control circuitry to sensory representations, particularly for momentarily inhibiting saccade generation.
New and noteworthy
Microsaccades are small saccades that occur during gaze fixation. Microsaccade rate is transiently reduced after sudden stimulus onsets, and then strongly rebounds before returning to baseline. We explored the influence of stimulus polarity (black versus white) on this “rate signature”. We found that small black stimuli cause stronger microsaccadic modulations than white ones, but primarily in the rebound phase. This suggests dissociated neural mechanisms for microsaccadic inhibition and subsequent rebound in the microsaccadic rate signature.
The present study examined the effect of different latencies for processing visual and auditory stimuli in cross-modal non-spatial repetition inhibition. In two experiments, the cue validity of modality and identity between the prime and the target was manipulated in a "prime-neutral cue-target" paradigm. A distinct neutral event was presented after the prime and before the onset of the target. The prime probe was visual in Experiment 1 and auditory in Experiment 2. The results in both experiments showed that RTs for identity-cued trials were significantly slower than RTs for identity-cued trials regardless of whether the modality of the target was visual or auditory. In addition, RTs for visual trials were significantly faster than RTs for auditory trials, indicating different latencies of processing visual and auditory stimuli. This latency difference affects cross-modal non-spatial repetition inhibition in two aspects: 1) creating a new representation (identity uncued) that is delivered via visual modality is easier under audio-visual conditions, and 2) retrieving an inhibited representation (identity cued) that is delivered via auditory modality is more difficult under visual-audio conditions. We propose that cross-modal non-spatial repetition inhibition, which is distinct from unimodal repetition inhibition, can be easily influenced by different latencies of processing visual and auditory stimuli.
Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the slower response to a target appearing at a previously attended location in a cue–target paradigm. It has been greatly explored in the visual or auditory modality. This study investigates differences between the IOR of audiovisual targets and the IOR of visual targets under conditions of modality-specific selective attention (Experiment 1) and divided-modalities attention (Experiment 2). We employed an exogenous spatial cueing paradigm and manipulated the modalities of targets, including visual, auditory, or audiovisual modalities. The participants were asked to detect targets in visual modality or both visual and auditory modalities, which were presented on the same (cued) or opposite (uncued) side as the preceding visual peripheral cues. In Experiment 1, we found the comparable IOR with visual and audiovisual targets when participants were asked to selectively focus on visual modality. In Experiment 2, however, there was a smaller magnitude of IOR with audiovisual targets as compared with visual targets when paying attention to both visual and auditory modalities. We also observed a reduced multisensory response enhancement effect and race model inequality violation at cued locations relative to uncued locations. These results provide the first evidence of the IOR with audiovisual targets. Furthermore, IOR with audiovisual targets decreases when paying attention to both modalities. The interaction between exogenous spatial attention and audiovisual integration is discussed.
This chapter examines human attention as indexed by the time-to-respond-to-stimulus events and evaluates the use of this behavioural metric. It discusses the limitations of using reaction time (RT) to make inferences about attention and explains the results of experiences that extend this approach by examining changes in responses over time and across different response systems. The findings reveal that multiple stages and aspects of task performance can contribute to RT and that it is not always clear how exactly attention interacts with these various processes to produce faster responses.
A new method based on adaptive Hessian matrix threshold of finding key SRUF (speeded up robust features) features is proposed and is applied to an unmanned vehicle for its dynamic object recognition and guided navigation. First, the object recognition algorithm based on SURF feature matching for unmanned vehicle guided navigation is introduced. Then, the standard local invariant feature extraction algorithm SRUF is analyzed, the Hessian Metrix is especially discussed, and a method of adaptive Hessian threshold is proposed which is based on correct matching point pairs threshold feedback under a close loop frame. At last, different dynamic object recognition experiments under different weather light conditions are discussed. The experimental result shows that the key SURF feature abstract algorithm and the dynamic object recognition method can be used for unmanned vehicle systems.
Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the performance disadvantage when detecting a target presented at a previously cued location. The current paper contributes to the long-standing debate whether IOR is caused by attentional processing or perceptual processing. We present a series of four experiments which varied the cue luminance in mixed and blocked conditions. We hypothesized that if inhibition was initialized by an attentional process the size of IOR should not vary in the blocked condition as participants should be able to adapt to the level of cue luminance. However, if a perceptual process triggers inhibition both experimental manipulations should lead to varying levels of IOR. Indeed, we found evidence for the latter hypothesis. In addition, we also varied the target luminance in blocked and mixed condition. Both manipulations, cue luminance and target luminance, affected IOR in an additive fashion suggesting that the two stimuli affect human behaviour on different processing stages.
Inhibition of return (IOR) is an important psychological construct describing inhibited responses to previously attended locations. In humans, it is investigated using Posner's cueing paradigm. This paradigm requires central visual fixation and detection of cued stimuli to the left or right of the fixation point. Stimuli can be validly or invalidly cued, appearing in the same or opposite location to the cue. Although a rat version of the spatial cueing paradigm (the covert orienting of attention task) does exist, IOR has so far not been demonstrated. We therefore investigated whether IOR could be robustly demonstrated in adult male rats using the covert orienting of attention task. This task is conducted in holed wall operant chambers with the central three holes mimicking the set-up for Posner cueing. Across four samples of rats (overall n = 84), we manipulated the following task parameters: stimulus onset asynchronies (Experiments 1-3), cue brightness (Experiment 1b) and the presence of a central reorienting event (Experiment 4). In Experiment 1, we also investigated strain differences by comparing Lister Hooded rats to Sprague-Dawley rats. Although Lister Hooded rats briefly showed evidence of IOR (Experiment 1a, and see Online Resource 1 data), we were unable to replicate this finding in our other experiments using different samples of this strain. Taken together, our findings suggest that IOR cannot be robustly demonstrated in the rat using the covert orienting of attention task conducted in holed wall operant chambers.
Inhibition of return (IOR) is a cognitive phenomenon whereby reaction times (RTs) are
slower to cued relative to uncued targets at cue-target onset asynchronies (CTOAs)
greater than approximately 300 ms. One important theory of IOR proposes that there are
two mutually exclusive forms of IOR, with an attentional/perceptual form arising when
the oculomotor system is actively suppressed, and a motoric form arising when it is
engaged (Taylor & Klein, 2000). Other theories propose that IOR is the result of multiple,
additive neural mechanisms (Abrams & Dobkin, 1994). Here, we have performed
computational simulations and empirical investigations in an attempt to reconcile these
two competing theories. Using a dynamic neural field (DNF) model of the intermediate
layers of the superior colliculus (iSC), we have modeled both a sensory adaptation
mechanism of IOR, and a motoric mechanism resulting from the aftereffects of saccadic
eye movements. Simulating these mechanisms, we replicated behavior and
neurophysiology in a number of variations on the traditional cue-target paradigm (Posner,
1980). Predictions driven by these simulations have led to the proposal of many
behavioral and neuroimaging experiments which further examine the plausibility of a 2-
mechanisms theory of IOR. Contrary to our original predictions, we demonstrated that
saccades are biased away from cued targets in a paired target saccade averaging
paradigm, even at short CTOAs. In paradigms thought to recruit both sensory and motoric
mechanisms, we robustly demonstrated that there are at least two independent, additive
mechanisms of IOR when tasks require saccadic responses to targets. When similar
paradigms were tested with manual responses to targets, additivity effects did not hold,
implying that the motoric mechanism of IOR does not transfer from the oculomotor to
skeletomotor systems. Furthermore, across numerous experiments using event-related
potential (ERP) techniques, we have demonstrated that P1 component reductions are
neither necessary, nor sufficient, for the behavioral exhibition of IOR. We propose that a
comprehensive framework for behavioral IOR must include (at least) four independent
neural mechanisms, differentially active depending on circumstances, including sensory
adaptation, saccadic aftereffects, local inhibition, and cortical habituation.
The authors propose a distinction between four issues underlying the debate on the status of location in visual selective attention. Three of them concern the representation within which attention operates. The grouping question focuses on whether or not this representation segments the visual eld into perceptual groups. The space-invariance question focuses on whether it describes objects in spatio-topic or in space-invariant coordinates. Finally, the feature-coding question concerns whether or not it contains information about objects' non-spatial features. The last issue focuses on whether or not attention can be guided preattentively towards items possessing certain pre-speci ed physical properties other than location, and is referred to as the attentional-guidance question. A critical survey of the literature within the proposed framework is presented. Based on its conclusions, the status of location in current research is outlined, and avenues for further research are suggested. Our visual system is limited in the amount of information it can deal with simultaneously. Thus, it is widely agreed that the perceptual analysis of the visual world takes place in two successive stages (e.g., Julesz, 1986; Kahneman, 1973; Neisser, 1967; Tsal, Meiran, & Lamy, 1995): a stage of preliminary analysis (pre-attentive stage) that is parallel and operates without capacity limitations; and a stage of more detailed analysis (focal attention) that is serial and operates only on selected parts of the visual eld.
Object-based attention was examined in 2 split-brain patients. A precued object could move within a visual field or cross the midline to the opposite field. Normal individuals show an inhibition in detecting signals in the cued object whether it moves within or between fields. Both patients showed this effect when the cued object moved within a visual field. When it crossed the midline into the opposite visual field, however, detection was faster in the cued box. These results reveal both facilitatory and inhibitory effects on attention that are object based and may last for several hundred milliseconds. However, the inhibition requires an intact corpus callosum for interhemispheric transfer, whereas the facilitation is transferred subcortically. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
The clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) involves neuropsychological testing to assess the integrity of higher order cerebral functions such as memory, cognition, visual perception, language and executive function. However, the onset of AD is insidious and diagnosing the very early stages may be precluded as such tests may lack the necessary sensitivity and specificity. This, together with the potential for similar shortcomings in relation to assessing disease progression and response to treatment, has prompted the search for disease markers based on abnormalities in additional aspects of brain processing. One area receiving increasing investigation is the integrity of visual and visual-attention-related processing.
It is well established that human observers respond more quickly to visual targets that appear in expected locations than
they do to ones in unexpected locations. These variations in simple reaction time have been attributed to a covert alignment
of an attentional mechanism to the expected target location. The present experiments investigated the influence of strength
of signal and strength of subject’s positional expectancy on the magnitude of this attentional effect. In the first experiment,
target luminance was varied over a range of three log units, and it was found that the effects of luminance were essentially
additive with the effect of the positional expectancy (i.e., the attention effect). The second experiment found that the magnitude
of visual attention interacts with the information value of the precue used to create the spatial expectancy, although, once
again, luminance had additive effects. The resuls are interpreted as indicating that, rather than influencing early visual
processing, the act of attending to a spatial location operates fairly late in the detection process.
Two experiments were conducted in which monaural clicks were presented to the right or left ear preceded by binaural verbal (Experiment 1) and musical (Experiment 2) warnings. After the "neutral" warnings, the clicks could be presented to the right or left ear equally often (50%); after the warnings which directed the attention to the left or right ear, the clicks could be presented to either the "expected" (67%) or to the "unexpected" (33%) ear. In Experiment 1 there was a cost effect for the "unexpected" ear and reaction times were significantly faster when the clicks were presented to the right ear. In Experiment 2, the musical warnings brought about a cost effect while no significant ear advantage was observed.
Several recent studies have shown that a brief event in the visual field (cue) can facilitate the detection of a target presented at that same place within about 100 msec. This initial facilitation was followed by an inhibition - i.e., targets presented at that same place were processed less efficiently than the ones presented elsewhere. As it happens, this crossover between facilitation and inhibition may well have been artefactual since it occurred precisely when the cue was turned off. Moreover, the relationship between late inhibition and prior facilitation was not clear. In the present experiment, a given location was cued by a luminance increment, for only 35 msec, of one out of 3 diodes located at fixation, 7° to the left and 7° to the right of fixation ( for each diode). The subsequent target, a small cross on a video screen, occurred in one of the 3 locations (). There was no correlation between the location of the cue and that of the target. Subjects had to press a single key, as quickly as possible, whenever a target was turned on. For peripheral targets, the same pattern of results as in the previous studies was found. This showed that this pattern was not artefactual. Cued central targets were always responded to slower than uncued ones. The implications of the latter finding for the relationship between facilitation and inhibition are discussed.