Inhibition of return at multiple locations and its impact on visual search

Previous research has shown that when attention is directed sequentially to multiple locations, inhibition of return (IOR) can be observed at each location, with a larger magnitude of IOR at the more recently attended locations. In the present study we asked whether this “multiple IOR” effect influences search only for simple feature targets, as has been shown in the past, or whether it generalizes to more complex, attentionally demanding conjunction search situations. The results demonstrated that IOR effects (1) occur for more complex conjunction search environments, (2) are larger for the attentionally demanding conjunction search, and (3) occur at more locations for conjunction search than feature search. Together these data provide a clear demonstration of the robustness and responsiveness of the IOR effect across search situations—which is precisely what is expected of a phenomenon posited to facilitate efficient visual search of real-world environments. Nevertheless, these data do not firmly establish that IOR effects established by the cueing paradigm before search is implemented are the same as the IOR effects that are assumed to be established during search itself. We suggest that this disconnection between paradigms highlights a fundamental limitation of laboratory-based research.     

Modulation of inhibition of return by type and number of dynamic changes of the cue

Inhibition of return (IOR) is a response delay when the target is preceded by an irrelevant stimulus (cue) at the same location. In a previous study, we investigated the separate and joint effects on IOR of cue onset and offset. IOR was much greater when cue onset was followed by cue offset (on-off cue) than when the cue was a single event (on or off cues). The aim of the present study was to test whether the greater IOR with an on-off cue is due to the presence of two cue events. Three experiments were conducted. In Experiment 1 we replicated, with a different delay between cue onset and offset, the finding that IOR is greater with an on-off cue than with a single cue event. In Experiments 2 and 3, we used cues formed by two events. In Experiment 2, an on-off cue was compared with an off-on cue, whereas in Experiment 3 an on-on cue was compared with an off-off cue. Results showed that the magnitude of IOR did not simply depend on the number of cue events occurring before the target. IOR was greater with two different events than with two identical events and greater when was preceded by an off-event than an on-event. Therefore, IOR was greatest with an on-off cue, which likely also benefited from a gap effect. Possible mechanisms underlying IOR were discussed. Received: 31 March 1999 / Accepted: 23 July 1999     

Unmasking the inhibition of return phenomenon

Conventional wisdom holds that a nonpredictive peripheral cue produces a biphasic response time (RT) pattern: early facilitation at the cued location, followed by an RT delay at that location. The latter effect is called inhibition of return (IOR). In two experiments, we report that IOR occurs at a cued location far earlier than was previously thought, and that it is distinct from attentional orienting. In Experiment 1, IOR was observed early (i.e., within 50 msec) at the cued location, when the cue predicted that a detection target would occur at another location. In Experiment 2, this early IOR effect was demonstrated to occur for target detection, but not for target identification. We conclude that previous failures to observe early IOR at a cued location may have been due to attention being directed to the cued location and thus “masking” IOR.     

Unmasking the inhibition of return phenomenon.

Conventional wisdom holds that a nonpredictive peripheral cue produces a biphasic response time (RT) pattern: early facilitation at the cued location, followed by an RT delay at that location. The latter effect is called inhibition of return (IOR). In two experiments, we report that IOR occurs at a cued location far earlier than was previously thought, and that it is distinct from attentional orienting. In Experiment 1, IOR was observed early (i.e., within 50 msec) at the cued location, when the cue predicted that a detection target would occur at another location. In Experiment 2, this early IOR effect was demonstrated to occur for target detection, but not for target identification. We conclude that previous failures to observe early IOR at a cued location may have been due to attention being directed to the cued location and thus "masking" IOR.     

Selective memories: infants' encoding is enhanced in selection via suppression

The present study examined the hypothesis that inhibitory visual selection mechanisms play a vital role in memory by limiting distractor interference during item encoding. In Experiment 1a we used a modified spatial cueing task in which 9‐month‐old infants encoded multiple category exemplars in the contexts of an attention orienting mechanism involving suppression (i.e. inhibition of return, IOR) versus one that does not (i.e. facilitation). At test, infants in the IOR condition showed both item‐specific learning and abstraction of broader category information. In contrast, infants in the facilitation condition did not discriminate across novel and familiar test items. Experiment 1b confirmed that the learning observed in the IOR condition was specific to spatial cueing of attention and was not due to timing differences across the IOR and facilitation conditions. In Experiment 2, we replicated the results of Experiment 1, using a within‐subjects design to explicitly examine learning and memory encoding in the context of concurrent suppression. These data show that developing inhibitory selective attention enhances efficacy of memory encoding for subsequent retrieval. Furthermore, these results highlight the importance of considering interactions between developing attention and memory systems.     

面孔表情和声音情绪信息整合对返回抑制的影响

返回抑制(inhibition of return, IOR)与情绪刺激都具有引导注意偏向、提高搜索效率的特点, 但二者间是否存在一定的交互作用迄今为止尚不明确。研究采用“线索-目标”范式并在视听双通道呈现情绪刺激来考察情绪刺激的加工与IOR的交互作用。实验1中情绪刺激以单通道视觉面孔或一致的视听双通道呈现, 实验2通过在视听通道呈现不一致的情绪刺激进一步考察视听双通道情绪一致刺激对IOR的影响是否是由听觉通道一致的情绪刺激导致的, 即是否对听觉通道的情绪刺激进行了加工。结果发现, 视听双通道情绪一致刺激能够削弱IOR, 但情绪不一致刺激与IOR之间不存在交互作用, 并且单双通道的IOR不存在显著差异。研究结果表明仅在视听双通道呈现情绪一致刺激时, 才会影响同一阶段的IOR, 这进一步支持了IOR的知觉抑制理论。     

Visual search in children and adults: Top-down and bottom-up mechanisms

Three experiments investigated visual search for targets that differed from distractors in colour, size, or orientation. In one condition the target was defined by a conjunction of these features, while in the other condition the target was the odd one out. In all experiments, 6–7- and 9–10-year-old children were compared with young adults. Experiment 1 showed that children's search differed from adults' search in two ways. In conjunction searches children searched more slowly and took longer to reject trials when no target was present. In the odd-one-out experiments, 6–7-year-old children were slower to respond to size targets than to orientation targets, and slower for orientation targets than for colour targets. Both the other groups showed no difference in their rate of responding to colour and orientation. Experiments 2 and 3 highlighted that these results were not a function of either differential density across set sizes (Experiment 2) or discriminability of orientation and colour (Experiment 3). Across all three experiments, the results of both conjunction and odd-one-out searches highlighted a development in visual search from middle to late childhood.     

Visual search in children and adults: top-down and bottom-up mechanisms

Three experiments investigated visual search for targets that differed from distractors in colour, size, or orientation. In one condition the target was defined by a conjunction of these features, while in the other condition the target was the odd one out. In all experiments, 6-7- and 9-10-year-old children were compared with young adults. Experiment 1 showed that children's search differed from adults' search in two ways. In conjunction searches children searched more slowly and took longer to reject trials when no target was present. In the odd-one-out experiments, 6-7-year-old children were slower to respond to size targets than to orientation targets, and slower for orientation targets than for colour targets. Both the other groups showed no difference in their rate of responding to colour and orientation. Experiments 2 and 3 highlighted that these results were not a function of either differential density across set sizes (Experiment 2) or discriminability of orientation and colour (Experiment 3). Across all three experiments, the results of both conjunction and odd-one-out searches highlighted a development in visual search from middle to late childhood.     

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.     

Inhibition of return for expected and unexpected targets

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slower reaction times (RTs) to targets that occur in the same, rather than in a different, location as a preceding onset cue. The present study examined IOR for expected (likely) and unexpected (unlikely) targets under conditions in which stimulus-response (S-R) expectancies were generated on a trial-by-trial basis or maintained across a block of trials. Three boxes were aligned along the vertical midline. In Experiments 1 and 2, the appearance of a cue in the upper or lower box was a signal to generate an expectancy about the most likely color of an impending discrimination target. In Experiment 3, one target color was more likely than another across a block of trials. In all cases, cue location did not predict target location. When S-R expectancies were generated on a trial-by-trial basis, IOR occurred for Unlikely targets but not for Likely targets; this was true across a range of cue-target stimulus onset asynchronies. In contrast, when S-R expectancies were maintained over a block of trials, IOR was larger for Likely than for Unlikely targets. These findings reveal a critical interaction of S-R expectancies with IOR. This interaction not only demonstrates the modulation of IOR by cognitive expectancies, but in doing so also provides evidence that is consistent with the view that IOR reflects a conservative response bias.     

Inhibition of return is composed of attentional and oculomotor processes.

Response time can be delayed if a target stimulus appears at a location or object that was previously cued. This inhibition of return (IOR) phenomenon has been attributed to a delay in activating attentional or motor processes to a previously cued stimulus. Two experiments required subjects to localize or identify a target stimulus. In Experiment 1, the subjects' eyes were not monitored. In Experiment 2, the subjects' eyes were monitored, and the subjects were instructed to either execute or withhold an eye movement to a target stimulus. The results indicated that IOR was always present for location and identification responses, supporting an attentional account of IOR. However, IOR was larger when eye movements were executed, indicating that a motor component can contribute to IOR. Finally, when eye movements were withheld, IOR was larger when a target was presented alone than when it was presented with a distractor, suggesting that IOR is larger for exogenous than for endogenous covert orienting. Together, the data indicate that IOR is composed of both an oculomotor component and an attentional component.     

Inhibition of return is composed of attentional and oculomotor processes

Response time can be delayed if a target stimulus appears at a location or object that was previously cued. This inhibition of return (IOR) phenomenon has been attributed to a delay in activating attentional or motor processes to a previously cued stimulus. Two experiments required subjects to localize or identify a target stimulus. In Experiment 1, the subjects’ eyes were not monitored. In Experiment 2, the subjects’ eyes were monitored, and the subjects were instructed to either execute or withhold an eye movement to a target stimulus. The results indicated that IOR was always present for location and identification responses, supporting an attentional account of IOR. However, IOR was larger when eye movements were executed, indicating that a motor component can contribute to IOR. Finally, when eye movements were withheld, IOR was larger when a target was presented alone than when it was presented with a distractor, suggesting that IOR is larger for exogenous than for endogenous covert orienting. Together, the data indicate that IOR is composed of both an oculomotor component and an attentional component.     

Inhibition of return in static but not necessarily in dynamic search

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

Inhibition of return in visual marking? The importance of the interstimulus interval and the type of search task

Four experiments are presented that examine the possibility that inhibition of return (IOR) may occur in visual marking. Previously, Watson and Humphreys (1997), using a cue duration of 750 ms and an interstimulus interval (ISI) of 250 ms, concluded that IOR was not present in visual marking. In the present study, the first experiment examined three ISIs (250 ms, 500 ms, and 750 ms) with a constant stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA, 1000 ms) in a typical cueing paradigm and failed to find IOR with the short ISI. Based on these findings, the second (feature search) and third (conjunction search) experiments tested for IOR by using a visual marking paradigm with a 500 ms ISI. Evidence for IOR was found in the feature search (preview condition similar to half-elements baseline condition) and not in the conjunction search (preview condition similar to the all-elements baseline). The typical preview effect was found in Experiment 4 with a cue duration 1000 ms and no ISI. Overall, these findings indicate that IOR may play a role in visual marking, but only with feature search tasks and long ISIs between displays.     

颜色和形状工作记忆对非空间返回抑制效应的影响

为进一步考察非空间返回抑制效应是否受工作记忆内容的影响,分别采用颜色和形状工作记忆内容,通过两个实验考察了工作记忆对非空间返回抑制效应的影响。实验结果表明,在颜色和形状工作记忆条件下,均产生了颜色或形状返回抑制效应,并且颜色或形状返回抑制效应量之间均无显著差异,颜色和形状工作记忆内容只增加了判断靶刺激的反应时。研究结论对进一步认识工作记忆内容与非空间返回抑制效应之间的关系有重要参考价值。     

The effects of implicit attentional learning and habituation on inhibition of return

In two experiments, the effects of implicit attentional learning and habituation on inhibition of return (IOR) were assessed. Experiment 1 consisted of an informative variant of the spatial cuing paradigm (Posner, 1980), with the target appearing most often at the location next to the cue. Short-term as well as long-term learning of the regularities could be observed. This learning took place even though the participants were not able to verbalize the learned information, suggesting that the learning was implicit. By spatially separating the effects of implicit learning and IOR, we demonstrated that the magnitude of IOR slightly decreased because of long-term implicit orienting. In Experiment 2, a noninformative variant of the spatial cuing paradigm, IOR was still found to decrease over the course of the experiment. This suggests that habituation due to the mere repeated initiation of IOR also affects the magnitude of the IOR. This theory is supported by the finding that IOR recovered after short breaks in Experiment 2. However, habituation presumably only played a secondary role in Experiment 1. In sum, IOR was abolished by neither implicit attentional learning nor habituation. Here, the finding that IOR is not easily replaced by implicitly learned orienting clearly indicates that IOR is a powerful, low-level mechanism. We discuss implications of these results for the debate on the function of IOR.     

Visualizing the temporal dynamics of spatial information processing responsible for the Simon effect and its amplification by inhibition of return

Research has shown that the Simon effect is larger for targets suffering from inhibition of return (IOR). We used speed–accuracy trade-off (SAT) methodology to explore the temporal dynamics underlying this interaction. In Experiment 1, a new method for sorting the data was used to reveal a monotonic decay in the impact of task-irrelevant location information that is responsible for the Simon effect. In Experiment 2, we show that IOR delays both task-relevant identity and task-irrelevant location codes; a relatively longer delay for location than identity codes accounts for the effect of IOR on the Simon effect. When location information was made task-relevant in Experiment 3, IOR delayed the accumulation of this information by about the same amount as when location was irrelevant. The results suggest that IOR, therefore, has a greater effect on location than identity information.     

Re-examining the contribution of visuospatial working memory to inhibition of return

Castel and colleagues (Percept Psychophys 65(6):970–981, 2003) proposed that visuospatial working memory is needed to retain and update the irrelevant but attended location in an inhibition of return (IOR) procedure. In a series of three experiments, we re-examined this hypothesis by loading visuospatial working memory and manipulating the timing of encoding. When the visuospatial memory items were presented right after the cue, as in Castel et al. (Percept Psychophys 65(6):970–981, 2003), we replicated the lack of IOR in the dual-task condition (Experiment 1). However, when we presented the visuospatial memory items before the spatial cue, to control for retroactive interference in encoding, we found robust IOR effects (Experiment 2); the effect remained strong even when participants were prevented from using verbal labels to rehearse the memory material (Experiment 3). We conclude that IOR does not seem to depend on retaining the position of the irrelevant cue in visuospatial working memory.     

Examining inhibition of return with onset and offset cues in the multiple-cuing paradigm

Three experiments examined inhibition of return (IOR) with onset and offset cues in a multiple-cuing paradigm. In the first two experiments, five sequential cues either appeared and remained present (onset cues) or disappeared and remained absent (offset cues). In the third experiment, the cues were either onset cues or on-off cues (appeared and then disappeared quickly after). With placeholders present, onset and offset cues produced similar declines in IOR from the most recently cued location (Experiment 1). In contrast, onset cues produced overall more IOR than on-off cues (Experiment 3). With placeholders absent (Experiment 2), no IOR was found for either onset or offset cues. The results suggest that even in a complex multiple-cuing paradigm, onsets and offsets are treated similarly by the attentional system. Furthermore, it appears that onset cues are easier to encode as previously searched than on-off cues, suggesting a role of working memory in IOR. Finally, when multiple locations are cued sequentially by onsets and offsets they must be marked by placeholders for inhibition to occur.     

Effects of relevant and irrelevant color singletons on inhibition of return and attentional capture

We tested whether color singletons lead to saccadic and manual inhibition of return (IOR; i.e., slower responses at cued locations) and whether IOR depended on the relevance of the color singletons. The target display was preceded by a nonpredictive cue display. In three experiments, half of the cues were response-relevant, because participants had to perform a discrimination task at the cued location. With the exception of Experiment 2, none of the cue colors matched the target color. We observed saccadic IOR after color singletons, which was greater for slow than for fast responses. Furthermore, when the relevant cue color matched the target color, we observed attentional capture (i.e., faster responses at cued locations) with rapid responses, but IOR with slower responses, which provides evidence for attentional deallocation. When the cue display was completely response-irrelevant in two additional experiments, we did not find evidence for IOR. Instead, we found attentional capture when the cue color matched the target color. Also, attentional capture was greater for rapid responses and with short cue–target intervals. Thus, IOR emerges when cues are relevant and do not match the target color, whereas attentional capture emerges with relevant and irrelevant cues that match the target color.