Knowledge of response location alone is not sufficient to generate social inhibition of return

Previous research has revealed that the inhibition of return (IOR) effect emerges when individuals respond to a target at the same location as their own previous response or the previous response of a co-actor. The latter social IOR effect is thought to occur because the observation of co-actor's response evokes a representation of that action in the observer and that the observation-evoked response code subsequently activates the inhibitory mechanisms underlying IOR. The present study was conducted to determine if knowledge of the co-actor's response alone is sufficient to evoke social IOR. Pairs of participants completed responses to targets that appeared at different button locations. Button contact generated location-contingent auditory stimuli (high and low tones in Experiment 1 and colour words in Experiment 2). In the Full condition, the observer saw the response and heard the auditory stimuli. In the Auditory Only condition, the observer did not see the co-actor's response, but heard the auditory stimuli generated via button contact to indicate response endpoint. It was found that, although significant individual and social IOR effects emerged in the Full conditions, there were no social IOR effects in the Auditory Only conditions. These findings suggest that knowledge of the co-actor's response alone via auditory information is not sufficient to activate the inhibitory processes leading to IOR. The activation of the mechanisms that lead to social IOR seems to be dependent on processing channels that code the spatial characteristics of action.     

靶子-靶子任务中认知控制对返回抑制的反转

使用冲突色词作为外源性线索,通过3(任务类型)×2(线索有效性)×2(色词一致性)混合设计考察认知控制对返回抑制(IOR)的影响。结果:(1)线索-靶子任务(CT)和靶子-靶子任务(TT)均产生正值IOR,CT的IOR效应量(32ms)显著大于TT(12ms)。(2)线索有效性和任务类型交互作用显著。按键反应组IOR效应量(11.85ms)显著大于颜色反应组(-18.5ms)和词意反应组(-25.65ms)。证实冲突色词在CT任务中做为线索可产生IOR,这种范式上的新尝试同样适用于TT任务。在TT任务中对认知冲突的觉察和控制导致IOR效应反转,支持注意的非盲性机制。研究为主动操纵被试对线索的认知控制程度,考察复杂任务下实施认知控制对注意定向的影响提供了一条可行途径。     

Within- and between-nervous-system inhibition of return: Observation is as good as performance

Inhibition of return (IOR) has been shown to occur when an individual returns to a target location (within-person IOR) and when an individual moves to a location just engaged by another individual (between-person IOR). Although within- and between-person IOR likely result from the same inhibitory mechanisms, different processes must activate these mechanisms following the performance and observation of action. Consistent with the suggestion that the mirror neuron system may be responsible for activating the inhibitory mechanisms behind IOR on observation trials, between-person IOR was only detected under restricted viewing conditions known to activate mirror neurons. These results indicate that mirror neuron system may be involved in both higher-order and automatic cognitive behavior.     

Precue effects in visual search: Data or resource limited?

Precuing an observer as to where a target is more likely to occur in a subsequent visual array can increase the detectability (d′) of a target at that location. This is often attributed to the observer’s increased allocation of some limited cognitive resource (“attention”) to the cued location. Two experiments are reported which are difficult to interpret in this way even though they involve similar cue effects. The first involves postcuing a location well after the array but before the observer responds, so that the cue can influence the response but not the observation. The second involves precuing, but with slow sequential presentation of array elements prior to the response, so the observer need not share any limited resource while processing each element in turn. Enhanced detectability similar to that produced with precues and simultaneous presentation of elements is shown to occur in each experiment. An alternative data-limited (rather than resource-limited) interpretation of these effects is provided by a mathematical model in which the observer integrates equally noisy or degraded internal representations of the array elements, but gives more weight to cued elements in selecting a response. Theoretical parameters of the model are shown to provide separate measures of both an observer’s overall sensitivity and precue effects in cost-benefit analyses of cuing data.     

Stimulus-response incompatibility eliminates inhibitory cueing effects with saccadic but not manual responses

There are thought to be two forms of inhibition of return (IOR) depending on whether the oculomotor system is activated or suppressed. When saccades are allowed, output-based IOR is generated, whereas input-based IOR arises when saccades are prohibited. In a series of 4 experiments, we mixed or blocked compatible and incompatible trials with saccadic or manual responses to investigate whether cueing effects would follow the same pattern as those observed with more traditional peripheral onsets and central arrows. In all experiments, an uninformative cue was displayed, followed by a cue-back stimulus that was either red or green, indicating whether a compatible or incompatible response was required. The results showed that IOR was indeed observed for compatible responses in all tasks, whereas IOR was eliminated for incompatible trials—but only with saccadic responses. These findings indicate that the dissociation between input- and output-based forms of IOR depends on more than just oculomotor activation, providing further support for the existence of an inhibitory cueing effect that is distinct to the manual response modality.     

Inhibition of return to an occluded object depends on expectation

Inhibition of return (IOR) is indexed by slower reaction times to targets presented at previously attended locations or objects. If a moving object is occluded, some studies find IOR, others do not. Four experiments examined whether this inconsistency hinges on the observer's expectation as to whether the object continues to exist at the end of its motion sequence. Results showed that observer expectation is a powerful determining factor: IOR occurs only if the observer expects the object to continue to exist. In contrast, if the object is not occluded, IOR occurs only if the object remains on view immediately before the target is presented. It was concluded that 2 factors, object continuity and observer expectation, mediate both location- and object-based IOR.     

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.     

Seeing vs. believing: Is believing sufficient to activate the processes of response co-representation?

It has been suggested that the observation of another person's action affects the behavior of the observer because the observation of action leads to the excitation of similar response codes in the observer. It is unknown, however, if one must witness the action or if it is sufficient for one to believe that the other agent is responding for response co-representation to occur. To this end, participants in the present study performed a joint spatial-compatibility task with a confederate when: (1) the confederate sat beside the participant; and, (2) the confederate left the room and told the participant that they would continue to perform their component of the task on a networked computer in another room. Even though participants believed that the confederate performed the task in another room, joint spatial-compatibility was only observed when the confederate was present. These results reveal that the actions of another person may only be represented by the observer when the observer is able to witness a portion of the action.     

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.     

Focal spatial attention can eliminate inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) is an orienting phenomenon characterized by slower responses to spatially cued than to uncued targets. In Experiment 1, a physically small digit that required identification was presented immediately following a peripheral cue. The digit could appear in the cued peripheral box or in the central box, thus guaranteeing a saccadic response to the cue in one condition and maintenance of fixation in the other. An IOR effect was observed when a saccadic response to the cue was required, but IOR was not generated by the peripheral cue when fixation was maintained in order to process the central digit. In Experiment 2, IOR effects were observed when participants were instructed to ignore the digits, whether those digits were presented in the periphery or at fixation. These findings suggest that behaviorally manifested, cue-induced IOR effects can be eliminated by focal spatial attentional control settings.     

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.     

Inhibition and disinhibition of return: Evidence from temporal order judgments

In the present study the temporal order judgment (TOJ) task was used to investigate whether or not inhibition of return (IOR) affects perceptual processing. Previous failures to obtain IOR in the TOJ task have been taken to suggest that IOR does not affect perceptual processing (e.g., Maylor, 1985). The present study showed that IOR is modulated by the temporal disparity between successive targets as well as the relative order in which they appear at cued and uncued locations. Consequently, IOR affects TOJs in some conditions but not in others. The selective occurrence of IOR in the TOJ task provides converging support for the notion that IOR does affect perceptual processing, and also accounts for the previous failures to observe IOR in the TOJ task. Moreover, these and other results suggest that inhibitory processing at the cued location can be dis-inhibited when stimulation occurs at other locations.     

A short-lived face alert during inhibition of return

In the present study, we explored the role of faces in oculomotor inhibition of return (IOR) using a tightly controlled spatial cuing paradigm. We measured saccadic response latency to targets following peripheral cues that were either faces or objects of lesser sociobiological salience. A recurring influence from cue content was observed across numerous methodological variations. Faces versus other object cues briefly reduced saccade latencies toward subsequently presented targets, independently of attentional allocation and IOR. The results suggest a short-lived priming effect or social facilitation effect from the mere presence of a face. In the present study, we further showed that saccadic responses were unaffected by face versus nonface objects in double-cue presentations. Our findings indicate that peripheral face cues do not influence attentional orienting processes involved in IOR any differently from other objects in a tightly controlled oculomotor IOR paradigm.     

认知老化中有意控制对自动抑制的调节作用

结合比例控制范式与基于空间位置的返回抑制范式, 探讨了认知老化过程中自上而下的有意认知控制对自动抑制的调节作用。结果表明, 当线索有效率由50%提升至80%时, 两组被试的返回抑制量均下降, 老年组表现为返回抑制消失, 但年轻组出现返回抑制的反转, 表明有意认知控制对自动抑制的调节作用受认知老化的影响而发生衰减。同时文章还就认知老化机制的新兴理论—— 执行衰退假说进行了讨论。     

不同线索下特质焦虑个体的返回抑制

焦虑与注意偏向的研究是近年来情绪与认知领域的热点。为探讨特质焦虑个体的注意偏向特点及其返回抑制能力是否受不同线索的调节, 采用特质焦虑量表筛选高特质焦虑大学生29名, 低特质焦虑大学生28名完成线索-靶子任务。要求被试在提示线索消失后, 对位置进行快而准地辨别反应, 分别探索中性和情绪性提示线索下被试的返回抑制。结果发现：(1)在中性线索条件下, 高焦虑个体平均反应时慢于低焦虑个体。(2) 在情绪线索条件下, 高焦虑个体在负性线索下的反应时小于在正性线索下的反应时; 高、低焦虑个体在各种SOA条件下均出现了返回抑制, 但各组返回抑制量受到情绪线索的调节：在正性情绪线索条件下, 两组返回抑制量没有显著差异; 在负性情绪线索下, 高焦虑个体返回抑制量显著小于低焦虑个体。这表明, (1)焦虑个体的注意偏向受到刺激信息的影响：只对负性情绪线索出现注意警觉; (2)只有在涉及负性情绪信息时高、低焦虑个体返回抑制能力才有差异, 高焦虑个体存在对负性情绪线索的抑制困难。     

Examining location-based and object-based components of inhibition of return in static displays

Tipper and Colleagues (e.g., Jordan & Tipper, 1998; Tipper, Driver, & Weaver, 1991; Tipper, Weaver, Jerreat, & Burak, 1994) have provided support for inhibition of return (IOR) being composed of a location-based and an object-based component. They were able to separate out the effects of locationbased and object-based IOR by using complex displays and displays that involved moving the cued object. The present study was designed to further examine the object- and location-based components of IOR in static displays. Three experiments were conducted that looked at the presence or absence of placeholder boxes on IOR. The first experiment was designed to replicate the results of Jordan and Tipper by presenting both objects and no-objects in the same display. In the second experiment, trials were blocked, and in the third experiment trials were presented in a random order. Overall, the results are inconsistent with the notion that independent object-based and location-based IOR components combine to produce the overall IOR effect and that additive effects are realized due to the context in which the trials are presented. We propose that a single inhibitory mechanism can account for the data.     

Examining location-based and object-based components of inhibition of return in static displays

Tipper and Colleagues (e.g., Jordan & Tipper, 1998; Tipper, Driver, & Weaver, 1991; Tipper, Weaver, Jerreat, & Burak, 1994) have provided support for inhibition of return (IOR) being composed of a location-based and an object-based component. They were able to separate out the effects of location-based and object-based IOR by using complex displays and displays that involved moving the cued object. The present study was designed to further examine the object- and location-based components of IOR in static displays. Three experiments were conducted that looked at the presence or absence of placeholder boxes on IOR. The first experiment was designed to replicate the results of Jordan and Tipper by presenting both objects and no-objects in the same display. In the second experiment, trials were blocked, and in the third experiment trials were presented in a random order. Overall, the results are inconsistent with the notion that independent object-based and location-based IOR components combine to produce the overall IOR effect and that additive effects are realized due to the context in which the trials are presented. We propose that a single inhibitory mechanism can account for the data.     

Inhibition of return at multiple locations in visual search: When you see it and when you don't

Using a novel sequential task, Danziger, Kingstone, and Snyder (1998) provided conclusive evidence that inhibition of return (IOR) can co-occur at multiple non-contiguous locations. They argued that their findings depended crucially on the allocation of attention to cued locations. Specifically, they hypothesized that because subjects could not predict whether an onset event was a target or a non-target, all onset events had to be attended. As a result, non-targets were tagged with inhibition. The present study tested this hypothesis by manipulating whether target onset was predictable or not. In support of Danziger et al., three experiments revealed that multiple IOR was only observed when attention had to be directed to the cued locations. Interestingly, when attention did not need to be allocated to the cued locations, and multiple IOR was abolished, an IOR effect was still observed at the most recently cued location. Two possible accounts for this single IOR effect were presented for future investigation. One account attributes the effect to motor-based inhibition as hypothesized by Klein and Taylor (1994). The alternative account attributes the effect to weak attentional capture by a peripheral cue. Together the data support the view that multiple IOR is an attentional phenomenon and, as hypothesized by Tipper, Weaver, and Watson (1996), its presence or absence is largely under the control of the observer.     

The observer perspective: biased imagery in social phobia, agoraphobia, and blood/injury phobia.

Clark and Wells' (1995): 'A cognitive model of social phobia'. In Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 69-93), R. G. Heimberg, M. R. Liebowitz, D. A. & F. R. Hope (eds.); cognitive model of social phobia proposes that social phobics generate a negative impression of how they appear to others. This impression often occurs in the form of an image from an "observer" perspective in which social phobics can see themselves as if from another person's vantage point. This study investigated the specificity of the observer perspective among patients with social phobia, agoraphobia, and blood/injury phobia. All participants were asked to recall and imagine a recent anxiety-provoking social situation and a non-social/non-anxiety-provoking situation, and rate their perspective for each. Consistent with predictions only patients with social-evaluative concerns (social phobics and agoraphobics) reported observer perspectives for anxiety-provoking social situations. Only social phobics showed a significant shift from an observer to a field perspective across the two conditions. The clinical implications of these findings are briefly discussed.     

Observer memories may not be for everyone

ABSTRACT

Six studies explored the preponderance of people who experience third-person perspective observer memories during autobiographical memory retrieval. The concept of first-person field versus observer memories has been extensively used in the areas of cognitive, social, and clinical psychology. An implicit assumption is the idea that most people use both of these perspectives. What varies are the circumstances that bias people to use one perspective over another for a given autobiographical memory. We challenge that assumption across six studies by showing that, while there are some people who report to regularly have observer memories, there are also those that report to rarely or never have them. These reports were found to be related to levels of reported dissociative experiences. We discuss how this difference in the experience of observer memories may also reflect other innate characteristics, and may correspond to predispositions for various pathologies, including depression, social phobia, and post-traumatic stress disorder.