Perceptual and motor inhibition of return: Components or flavors?

Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, .
Attention Perception & Psychophysics (Impact Factor: 2.17). 06/2012; 74(7):1416-29. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-012-0332-x
Source: PubMed


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.

Download full-text


Available from: Raymond M Klein
  • Source
    • "The present investigation re-evaluates whether oculomotor IOR is object-based by replicating Abrams and Dobkin (1994)'s original methods and integrating variations of Hilchey et al. (2012)'s methods with this design. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Intermixing central, directional arrow targets with the peripheral targets typically used in the Posnerian spatial cueing paradigm offers a useful diagnostic for ascertaining the relative contributions of output and input processes to oculomotor inhibition of return (IOR). Here, we use this diagnostic to determine whether object-based oculomotor IOR comprises output or input processes. Peripheral cuing was combined with motion of the cued and uncued objects and at the end of a trial a saccade was executed in response to a peripheral or central arrow target. Whereas there was evidence for oculomotor IOR at the cued location, there was no trace of IOR at the cued object. We thereafter precisely replicated the seminal experiment for object-based oculomotor IOR (Abrams & Dobkin, 1994; Experiment 4); there was no evidence of an effect. The findings, when considered alongside the literature on object-based IOR in tasks requiring manual responses, suggest that input-based “IOR” remaps dynamically into object-based coordinates whereas output-based IOR does not.
    Full-text · Conference Paper · Nov 2014
  • Source
    • ", pro-saccadic responses generate output-based effects whether visual [31] or auditory [25] feedback is provided, or if the trial is spontaneously aborted upon the detection of an erroneous saccadic eye movement [39]. Second , whereas Christie et al. opted for simple keypress detection responses in their manual response condition, we opted for manual localization responses. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Inhibition of return (IOR) commonly refers to the effect of prolonged response times to targets at previously attended locations. It is a well-documented fact that IOR is not restricted to previously attended locations, but rather has a spatial gradient. Based on a myriad of manual/saccadic dissociations, many researchers now believe that there are at least two forms of IOR completely dissociable on the basis of response type. The present study evaluated whether these two forms of IOR are encoded in similar representations of space. Across a range of conditions, there was little indication that the two forms could be differentiated on the basis of their spatial distributions. Furthermore, the present study also found that the gradient of IOR was steepest for cues appearing nearest fixation.
    Full-text · Article · Jul 2014 · Neuroscience Letters
  • 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.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2013 · Attention Perception & Psychophysics
Show more