Reduced response readiness delays stop signal inhibition

This study examines the effect of response readiness on the stopping of motor responses. Thirteen subjects performed a primary task requiring a speeded choice reaction on go trials and response inhibition on nogo trials. An occasional cue informed subjects that a nogo trial was imminent but left them uncertain about the number of go trials separating the cue and the upcoming nogo trial. This setup was meant to create test episodes of reduced response readiness (i.e., trial sequences initiated by the cue and terminated by the nogo signal) and control episodes, in which subjects were ready to execute a speeded choice reaction (i.e., trial sequences consisting only of go trials). During both episodes, a visual stop signal could occasionally and unpredictably follow go signal onset, instructing subjects to withhold their response to the go signal. Choice reactions on go trials were delayed during test episodes relative to control episodes. Most importantly, stop reactions were delayed, not facilitated, during test episodes compared to control episodes. These findings were taken to suggest that reduced readiness gives rise to more forceful responses that are then more difficult to inhibit.     

The interaction between stop signal inhibition and distractor interference in the flanker and Stroop task

In the present study, two experiments were conducted to investigate the interaction between the behavioral inhibition, measured by the stop signal task, and distractor interference, measured by the flanker task and the Stroop task. In the first experiment, the stop signal task was combined with a flanker task. Analysis revealed that participants responded faster when the distractors were congruent to the target. Also, the data suggest that it is more difficult to suppress a reaction when the distractors were incongruent. Whether the incongruent distractor was part of the response set (i.e. the distractor could also be a target) or not, had no influence on stopping reactions. In the second experiment, the stop signal task was combined with a manual version of the Stroop task and the degree of compatibility was varied. Even though in the second experiment of the present study interference control is differently operationalized, similar results as in the first experiment were found, indicating that inhibition of motor responses is influenced by the presentation of distracting information that is not part of the response set.     

Effects of stop signal modality, stop signal intensity and tracking method on inhibitory performance as determined by use of the stop signal paradigm

In Experiment 1, the effects of stop signal modality on the speed and efficiency of the inhibition process were examined. Stop signal reaction time (SSRT) and inhibition function slope in an auditory stop signal condition were compared to SSRT and inhibition function slope in a visual stop signal condition. It was found that auditory stop signals compared to visual stop signals enhanced both the speed and efficiency of stopping. The modality effects were attributed to differences in the neurophysiological processes underlying perception. However, Experiment 2 demonstrated that the modality difference was larger for 80 dB(A) auditory stop signals than 60 dB(A) auditory stop signals. This effect was reconciled with the suggestion that loud tones are more capable of eliciting immediate arousing effects on motor processes than weak tones and visual stimuli. The second purpose of the present investigation was to explore the utility (and potential advantages) of an alternative way of setting stop signal delay relative to mean reaction time (MRT). The method that was suggested compensates for inter-individual differences in primary task reaction speed by setting stop signal delays as proportions of the subjects' MRT.     

The effect of interference in the early processing stages on response inhibition in the stop signal task

In the present study, the relation between interference at the early processing stages and response inhibition was investigated. In previous studies, response stopping appeared to be slowed down when irrelevant distracting information was presented. The purpose of the present study was to further explore the relationship between interference control and response inhibition. In Experiment 1, a stop signal paradigm was combined with a global/local task. The typical global-to-local interference effect is generally attributed to early processing stages, such as stimulus perception and identification. Results of this experiment demonstrated a congruency effect for both reaction time data and zstopping performance. In Experiment 2, these results were replicated with a flanker task that used stimulus-incongruent but response-congruent flankers. Results of both experiments suggest that response inhibition and interference at the early processing stages interact.     

The effect of interference in the early processing stages on response inhibition in the stop signal task

In the present study, the relation between interference at the early processing stages and response inhibition was investigated. In previous studies, response stopping appeared to be slowed down when irrelevant distracting information was presented. The purpose of the present study was to further explore the relationship between interference control and response inhibition. In Experiment 1, a stop signal paradigm was combined with a global/local task. The typical global-to-local interference effect is generally attributed to early processing stages, such as stimulus perception and identification. Results of this experiment demonstrated a congruency effect for both reaction time data and zstopping performance. In Experiment 2, these results were replicated with a flanker task that used stimulus-incongruent but response-congruent flankers. Results of both experiments suggest that response inhibition and interference at the early processing stages interact.     

The spatial distribution of inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the finding that response times (RTs) are typically slower for targets at previously attended (cued) locations than for targets at novel (uncued) locations. Although previous research has indicated that IOR may spread beyond a cued location, the present study is the first to examine the spatial distribution of IOR with high spatial resolution over a large portion of the central visual field. This was done by using a typical IOR procedure (cue, delay, target) with 4 cue locations and 441 target locations (each separated by 1° of visual angle). The results indicate that IOR spreads beyond the cued location to affect the cued hemifield. However, the cues also produced a gradient of RTs throughout the visual field, with inhibition in the cued hemifield gradually giving way to facilitation in the hemifield opposite the cue.     

The mechanism underlying inhibition of saccadic return

Human observers take longer to re-direct gaze to a previously fixated location. Although there has been some exploration of the characteristics of inhibition of saccadic return (ISR), the exact mechanisms by which ISR operates are currently unknown. In the framework of accumulation models of response times, in which evidence is integrated over time to a response threshold, ISR could reflect a reduction in the rate of accumulation for saccades to return locations or an increase in the effective criterion for response. In two experiments, participants generated sequences of three saccades, in response to a peripheral or a central cue. ISR occurred across these manipulations: saccade latency was consistently increased for movements to the immediately previously fixated location. Latency distributions from individual observers were fit with a Linear Ballistic Accumulator model. ISR was best accounted for as a change in the accumulation rate. We suggest this parameter represents the overall desirability of a particular course of action, the evidence for which may be derived from a variety of sensory and non-sensory sources.     

Color-based inhibition of return

The inhibition of return of visual attention based on stimulus color was examined in three experiments. In the first experiment, a discrete trial paradigm showed that subjects were slower to detect a color patch if the color matched that of a patch presented earlier in the same location. Experiment 2 showed that the inhibition only occurs if a neutral, nontarget distractor color is presented between presentation of the initial color cue and the subsequent target patch—explaining the previous failures to detect the phenomenon. Experiment 3 extended the results to a different combination of colors. Taken together, the results have important implications for the processing of stimulus attributes such as spatial location and color, and for the conditions necessary for producing inhibition of return.     

Social inhibition of return

Responses to a target stimulus can be slower when it appears in the same rather than a different location to a previous event, an effect known as inhibition of return (IOR). Recently, it has been shown that when two people alternate responses to a target, one person’s responses are slower when they are directed to the same locations as their partner’s previous response. The present study sought to investigate this highly novel effect, which we term social IOR (SIOR), in relation to what is known of IOR in individuals performing alone. We found that only a real conspecific can induce SIOR in another person, whereas an animated conspecific cannot. Additionally, SIOR emerges at locations to which a conspecific has been inferred to respond, even when direct observation of his/her responses is prevented. Finally, SIOR can be induced without the abrupt visual transients normally associated with the generation of IOR. These findings suggest that SIOR is the result of stronger activations of IOR mechanisms, or that it is subserved by entirely separate inhibitory processes.     

The effects of expectancy on inhibition of return

This research examined the influence of cue temporal predictability on inhibition of return (IOR). In exogenous attention experiments, the cue that summons attention is non-informative as to where the target will appear. However, it is predictive as to when it will appear. Because in most experiments there are equal numbers of trials for each cue-target interval (SOA--stimulus onset asynchrony), as time passes from the appearance of the cue, the probability of target presentation increases. Predictability was manipulated by using three SOA distributions: non-aging, aging and accelerated-aging. A robust IOR was found that was not modulated by temporal information within a trial. These results show that reflexive effects are relatively protected against modulation by higher volitional processes.     

The role of affordances in inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) is a response delay that occurs when the target is preceded by an irrelevant stimulus (cue) at the same location. IOR can be object based, as well as location based. The aim of the present study was to investigate the role of the pragmatic features of a visually presented object in causing IOR. Two experiments were carried out using different objects as stimuli, for which the graspable part (affordance) was clearly defined. The presentation of a whole object, with the part commonly used to grasp it located below, served as a cue. The presentation of either the graspable or the ungraspable part of the cued or uncued object served as the target Results showed that responses were slower when the graspable part was shown in the cued location than when the ungraspable part was shown in the same location. The effect was apparently linked to the kind of action necessary to grasp an object.     

Stimulus-response probability and inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slowed responding to targets at a location previously occupied by an irrelevant cue. Here we explore the interaction between stimulus-response (S-R) probability and IOR effects using go/no-go (Experiment 1) and two-choice discrimination tasks (Experiment 2). In both experiments, the IOR effect was larger for the likely S-R ensemble than for the unlikely one. In the first experiment, there were more false alarms for uncued targets than for cued targets, and this difference was larger for the unlikely S-R ensemble than for the likely one. In the second experiment, the same pattern was observed for incorrect keypress responses. As with voluntary orienting in response to predictive central cues, the results suggest that IOR affects late stages of processing by altering the criteria to respond to targets presented at the cued (previously attended) location.     

Reorienting attention and inhibition of return

In experiments examining inhibition of return (IOR), it is common practice to present a second cue at fixation during the cue-target interval. The purpose of this fixation cue is to reorient attention away from the cued location to ensure that the facilitative effects of spatial attention do not obscure IOR. However, despite their frequent use, relatively little is known about the relationship between fixation cues and IOR. In the present experiments, we examined the role of fixation cues by manipulating their presence in tasks that either did or did not require target identification. When the participants were required to either detect (Experiment 1A) or localize (Experiment 2A) a target, the magnitude of IOR was unaffected by the presence of a fixation cue. In contrast, when the participants were required to identify a target (Experiments 1B, 2B, and 3), IOR was observed only when a fixation cue was presented. This result was obtained regardless of the type of response that was required (two-alternative forced choice or go/no go). The effectiveness of the fixation cue in revealing IOR in these tasks is consistent with its putative role in reorienting attention away from the cued location.     

Auditory and audiovisual inhibition of return

Two experiments examined any inhibition-of-return (IOR) effects from auditory cues and from preceding auditory targets upon reaction times (RTs) for detecting subsequent auditory targets. Auditory RT was delayed if the preceding auditory cue was on the same side as the target, but was unaffected by the location of the auditorytarget from the preceding trial, suggesting that response inhibition for the cue may have produced its effects. By contrast, visual detection RT was inhibited by the ipsilateral presentation of a visual target on the preceding trial. In a third experiment, targets could be unpredictably auditory or visual, and no peripheral cues intervened. Both auditory and visual detection RTs were now delayed following an ipsilateral versus contralateral target in either modality on the preceding trial, even when eye position was monitored to ensure central fixation throughout. These data suggest that auditory target—target IOR arises only when target modality is unpredictable. They also provide the first unequivocal evidence for cross-modal IOR, since, unlike other recent studies (e.g., Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996; Tassinari & Berlucchi, 1995; Tassinari & Campara, 1996), the present cross-modal effects cannot be explained in terms of response inhibition for the cue. The results are discussed in relation to neurophysiological studies and audiovisual links in saccade programming.     

The relationship between inhibition of return and saccade trajectory deviations

After presentation of a peripheral cue, a subsequent saccade to the cued location is delayed (inhibition of return: IOR). Furthermore, saccades typically deviate away from the cued location. The present study examined the relationship between these inhibitory effects. IOR and saccade trajectory deviations were found after central (endogenous) and peripheral (exogenous) cuing of attention, and both effects were larger with an onset cue than with a color singleton cue. However, a dissociation in time course was found between IOR and saccade trajectory deviations. Saccade trajectory deviations occurred at short delays between the cue and the saccade, but IOR was found at longer delays. A model is proposed in which IOR is caused by inhibition applied to a preoculomotor attentional map, whereas saccade trajectory deviations are caused by inhibition applied to the saccade map, in which the final stage of oculomotor programming takes place.     

Reconceptualizing inhibition of return as

Inhibition of return (IOR) is an effect on spatial attention whereby reaction times to a target presented at a location where a stimulus had recently been presented are increased, as opposed to when a target is presented at a new location. Despite early reports that habituation is not responsible for the IOR effect, the human cognitive literature provides indirect evidence in favor of the possibility. In addition, recent neurophysiological studies provide direct support for the idea that habituation is at least a contributing source for the IOR effect. The present article describes how habituation may account for the IOR effect and explores some of the predictions that this hypothesis suggests.     

Spatial working memory and inhibition of return

Recently we showed that maintaining a location in spatial working memory affects saccadic eye movement trajectories, in that the eyes deviate away from the remembered location (Theeuwes, Olivers, & Chizk, 2005). Such saccade deviations are assumed to be the result of inhibitory processes within the oculomotor system. The present study investigated whether this inhibition is related to the phenomenon of inhibition of return (IOR), the relatively slow selection of previously attended locations as compared with new locations. The results show that the size of IOR to a location was not affected by whether or not the location was kept in working memory, but the size of the saccade trajectory deviation was affected. We conclude that inhibiting working memory-related eye movement activity is not the same as inhibiting a previously attended location in space.     

Location and shape in inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) is characterized by a delay in responding to a target preceded by an irrelevant stimulus (cue) at the same location, or, in other words, by a response delay when the same location is stimulated twice. It is not clear, however, if the same phenomenon is present when there is a repetition of a simple nonspatial attribute of the stimulus. The present study examines the repetition of shape. Six experiments were conducted. In Experiments 1, 2, 3, and 6 the stimuli were geometrical shapes, whereas in Experiments 4 and 5 letters were used. In Experiment 1 all the stimuli were presented at fixation, whereas in Experiments 2 to 6 they were presented in the periphery. In Experiments 2 and 3, location and shape of the cue and the target were independently manipulated in order to test independently inhibitory effects (IOR?) attributable to location repetition and shape repetition. Results showed an inhibitory effect for location and a much smaller inhibitory effect for shape. The latter was restricted to the cued location. Experiments 4 and 5 tested the possibility that inhibition caused by shape repetition is due to repetition blindness. Experiment 6 contrasted the presence or absence of a central neutral attractor in the delay interval between presentation of the cue and the target. Taken together the results seem to favor IOR as the basis for the inhibition caused by shape repetition.     

Long-term inhibition of return of attention

During search of the environment, the inhibition of the return (IOR) of attention to already-examined information ensures that the target will ultimately be detected. Until now, inhibition was assumed to support search of information during one processing episode. However, in some situations search may have to be completed long after it was begun. We therefore propose that inhibition can be associated with an episode encoded into memory such that later retrieval reinstates inhibitory processing and encourages examination of new information. In two experiments in which attention was drawn to face stimuli with an exogenous cue, we demonstrated for the first time the existence of long-term IOR. Interestingly, this was the case only for faces in the left visual field, perhaps because more efficient processing of faces in the right hemisphere than the left hemisphere results in richer, more retrievable memory representations.     

Vector averaging of inhibition of return

Observers detected targets presented 400 msec after a display containing one cue or two to four cues displayed simultaneously in randomly selected locations on a virtual circle around fixation. The cue arrangement was completely uninformative about the upcoming target’s location, and eye position was monitored to ensure that the participants maintained fixation between the cue and their manual detection response. Reflecting inhibition of return (IOR), there was a gradient of performance following single cues, with reaction time decreasing monotonically as the target’s angular distance from the cued direction increased. An equivalent gradient of IOR was found following multiple cues whose center of gravity fell outside the parafoveal region and, thus, whose net vector would activate an orienting response. Moreover, on these trials, whether or not the targeted location had been stimulated by a cue had little effect on this gradient. Finally, when the array of cues was balanced so that its center of gravity was at fixation, there was no IOR. These findings, which suggest that IOR is an aftermath of orienting elicited by the cue, are compatible with population coding of the entire cue (as a grouped array for multiple cues) as the generator of IOR.