Between-person effects on attention and action: Joe and Fred revisited

Previous study indicates that target–target inhibition of return (IOR) is not restricted to a single nervous system. Specifically, watching another person perform a goal-directed aiming movement engages similar inhibitory processes on a subsequent aiming attempt as if having performed the preceding movement oneself. This between-person effect has been attributed to the mirror neuron system. In the study reported here, we replicated this finding and examined the relative importance of automatic stimulus alerting events and action–observation by dissociating these two influences. This was done by having two people alternately perform sets of two aiming trials to the same equally probable targets. Under some experimental conditions, one or both of the performers moved to a non-illuminated target. In this way, we dissociated the stimulus and observed event under some between-person conditions. Although IOR was greatest when the stimulus and observed events were compatible, both contributed to the between-person inhibitory processes slowing the responses (Experiment 1). The impact of observing another person perform an aiming movement appears to have more to do with realizing a particular spatial goal than seeing the biological motion associated with achieving that goal (Experiment 2). Findings that both the illumination of a visual target signal and the observation of another person’s action engage similar attention–action processes are consistent with action-based accounts of visual selective attention.     

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.     

The performance and observation of action shape future behaviour

The observation of other people’s actions plays an important role in shaping the perceptual, cognitive, and motor processes of the observer. It has been suggested that these social influences occur because the observation of action evokes a representation of that response in the observer and that these codes are subsequently accessed by other cognitive systems to modify future behaviour. In the case of social search and movement tasks, the observation-evoked response code is thought to activate the same mechanisms that are activated following internally-generated response codes. In support of this hypothesis, the present study revealed that the magnitudes of the between-person inhibition of return (IOR) effects were correlated with within-person IOR effects. These findings provide substantial support for the link between observation-evoked response codes and social cognitive effects.     

返回抑制对工作记忆储存和目标维持的影响

将线索一靶子范式和N—Back变式结合,以工作记忆的记忆错误和侵入错误数为指标,探讨了返回抑制与工作记忆的储存和加工之间的关系,并对返回抑制的机制进行了深入探讨。结果表明,当记忆项目出现在线索化位置时,两种错误数均显著高于出现于非线索化位置的情况,但侵入错误的抑制效应只出现于长SOA条件。这揭示了返回抑制既影响工作记忆的储存又影响对任务目标的维持,也为返回抑制的注意说提供了新证据。     

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.     

Eliminating inhibition of return by changing salient nonspatial attributes in a complex environment

Inhibition of return (IOR) occurs when a target is preceded by an irrelevant stimulus (cue) at the same location: Target detection is slowed, relative to uncued locations. In the present study, we used relatively complex displays to examine the effect of repetition of nonspatial attributes. For both color and shape, attribute repetition produced a robust inhibitory effect that followed a time course similar to that for location-based IOR. However, the effect only occurred when the target shared both the feature (i.e., color or shape) and location with the cue; this constraint implicates a primary role for location. The data are consistent with the idea that the system integrates consecutive stimuli into a single object file when attributes repeat, hindering detection of the second stimulus. The results are also consistent with an interpretation of IOR as a form of habituation, with greater habituation occurring with increasing featural overlap of a repeated stimulus. Critically, both of these interpretations bring the IOR effect within more general approaches to attention and perception, rather than requiring a specialized process with a limited function. In this view, there is no process specifically designed to inhibit return, suggesting that IOR may be the wrong framing of inhibitory repetition effects. Instead, we suggest that repetition of stimulus properties can interfere with the ability to focus attention on the aspects of a complex display that are needed to detect the occurrence of the target stimulus; this is a failure of activation, not an inhibition of processing.     

Effect of spatial inhibition on saccade trajectory depends on location-based mechanisms

Abstract:  Saccade trajectory often curves away from a previously attended, inhibited location. A recent study of curved saccades showed that an inhibitory effect prevents ineffective reexamination during serial visual search. The time course of this effect differs from that of a similar inhibitory effect, known as inhibition of return (IOR). In the present study, we examined whether this saccade-related inhibitory effect can operate in an object-based manner (similar to IOR). Using a spatial cueing paradigm, we demonstrated that if a cue is presented on a placeholder that is then shifted from its original location, the saccade trajectory curves away from the original (cued) location (Experiment 1), yet the IOR effect is observed on the cued placeholder (Experiment 2). The inhibitory mechanism that causes curved saccades appears to operate in a location-based manner, whereas the mechanism underlying IOR appears to operate in an object-based manner. We propose that these inhibitory mechanisms work in a complementary fashion to guide eye movements efficiently under conditions of a dynamic visual environment.     

Examining inhibition of return with multiple sequential cues in younger and older adults

Studies with younger adults have shown that when multiple peripheral cues are presented sequentially, inhibition of return (IOR) occurs at several locations with the greatest IOR at the most recently cued location and the least at the earliest cued location. The inhibitory ability needed to tag multiple locations requires visuospatial working memory, and it is thought that this type of memory may be vulnerable to the effects of aging. The present experiments examined whether older adults would show less IOR at multiple cued locations than younger adults when placeholders were present (Experiment 1) and absent (Experiment 2). Of interest, in both experiments older adults showed an almost identical pattern of IOR, in both magnitude and number of inhibited locations, to that of younger adults. This finding, in conjunction with research on memory-guided saccades, suggests that there may be a form of visuospatial working memory, specific to oculomotor and visual attention processes, that is relatively resistant to the effects of aging.     

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.     

Inhibition of return: A “depth-blind” mechanism?

When attention is oriented to a peripheral visual event, observers respond faster to stimuli presented at a cued location than at an uncued location. Following initial reaction time facilitation responses are slower to stimuli subsequently displayed at the cued location, an effect known as inhibition of return (IOR). Both facilitatory and inhibitory effects have been extensively investigated in two-dimensional space. Facilitation has also been documented in three-dimensional space, however the presence of IOR in 3D space is unclear, possibly because IOR has not been evaluated in an empty 3D space. Determining if IOR is sensitive to the depth plane of stimuli or if only their bi-dimensional location is inhibited may clarify the nature of the IOR. To address this issue, we used an attentional cueing paradigm in three-dimensional (3D) space. Results were obtained from fourteen participants showed IOR components in 3D space when binocular disparity was used to induce depth. We conclude that attentional orienting in depth operates as efficiently as in the bi-dimensional space.     

镜像神经元的发现及其对身心二元论的超越

镜像神经元是意大利帕尔玛大学Rizzolatti等人在恒河猴大脑腹侧运动前皮层F5区发现的一种神经元。这种神经元在猴子操作和观察同一个指向某种目标的动作时(如伸手抓食物)皆被激活,似乎这种神经元映射了其它个体的动作,因此被命名为“镜像神经元”。镜像神经元通过具身的模拟把动作的执行和动作的知觉结合在一起,把观察过程与身体运动过程相融合,克服了二元论在身心之间所设置的障碍,为人们正确认识身心关系开辟了新的视角。     

Inhibition of return in static and dynamic displays

Inhibition of return (IOR) causes people to be slower to return their attention to a recently attended object (object-based IOR) or location (location-based IOR). In attempts to separately measure the two components, moving stimuli have been used that permit the dissociation of the attended object from its location when it was attended. The implicit assumption has been that both object- and locationbased components of IOR will operate whenever the cued object and cued location are identical. We show here that although this assumption may be true in a static display, it appears to be unwarranted when moving stimuli are involved: Very little IOR is observed when a cued object moves away from, and then subsequently returns to, its initial location. Thus, the processes that underlie IOR operate very differently in static versus dynamic scenes.     

The interplay of stop signal inhibition and inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slower responding to a stimulus that appears in the same rather than a different location as that of a preceding stimulus. The goal of the present study was to examine the relationship between IOR and stop signal inhibition. Participants were presented with two stimuli (S1 and S2) on each trial. On half of the trials (go trials), participants were required to make a speeded button-press response to report the location of S1; on the other half of trials (stop trials), they were required to cancel the response to S1, as indicated by the appearance of a stop signal at a variable delay (stop signal delay, SSD) after the appearance of S1. Success in cancelling an S1 response varied directly as a function of the SSD: The longer the delay, the more difficult it was for participants to cancel the prepared response. We examined the magnitude of IOR in the S2 reaction times as a function of whether participants made a correct go response to S1, made an erroneous non-cancelled response to S1, or successfully cancelled a response to S1. Our results indicated that the presentation of a stop signal increased the magnitude of IOR, even when the S1 response was not successfully cancelled. However, this was true only when the to-be-cancelled response involved the same effectors as the response used to reveal IOR. These results suggest that there may be a motor component to IOR that is sensitive to the same inhibitory processes that are used to cancel responses in a stop signal paradigm.     

动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制 ——是客体抑制还是空间抑制的动态更新？

对动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制进行了考察。实验1在双侧客体改变和不改变条件下考察了返回抑制效应,结果表明,在双侧客体改变条件下返回抑制仍然存在。实验2采用单侧客体变化技术对动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制进行了测量,结果发现,在有效线索化条件下,单侧客体改变和不改变条件下对靶子的反应时没有显著差异（p > 0.90）。这些结果表明动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制的机制是空间抑制的动态更新,而不是客体表征受到抑制     

Inhibition of return: Unraveling a paradox

Although inhibition of return (IOR) is widely believed to aid search by discouraging reexamination of previously inspected locations, its impact actually appears to decline as the number of target locations increases. We test three possible reasons for this paradoxical result: (1) IOR is capacity-limited, (2) IOR is sensitive to subtle changes in target location probability, and (3) IOR decays with distance from a previously attended location. The present investigation provides strong support for the third explanation, indicating that a gradient of inhibition is centered on previously attended locations. We note that this inhibitory gradient resolves a paradox in the literature. Moreover, we speculate that the inhibitory gradient may reflect a “similarity space” within which target locations near to the cue are tagged with inhibition due to their similarity to the cued location. The farther the target location is away, the less similar it is to the cued location, and thus the less inhibition it receives.     

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.     

动态情景中颜色特征和身份特征在返回抑制中的作用

在动态的“线索-靶子”范式中引入隧道刺激, 以靶子与线索的非空间特征相同时的反应延迟测量返回抑制效应。实验1利用单向隧道创设客体的空间位置信息明确且可靠的条件, 考察客体的颜色特征在返回抑制中的作用。实验2利用双向隧道创设客体的空间位置信息不明确的条件, 考察客体的颜色特征在返回抑制中的独立作用。实验3、4分别采用与实验1、2类似的方法, 在动态任务情景中考察客体的身份特征在返回抑制中的作用。结果显示, 线索呈现与靶子呈现的时间间隔较长时, 4个实验中均存在显著的返回抑制效应。这表明, 动态情景中, 客体的空间位置信息明确且可靠时, 颜色特征和身份特征在返回抑制中都发挥着重要作用; 客体的空间位置信息不明确时, 颜色特征和身份特征在返回抑制中也都具有相对独立的作用。     

Attending to objects: Endogenous cues can produce inhibition of return

Inhibition of Return (IOR) is effective in a wide range of experimental settings but has proven elusive under conditions of volitional (endogenous) attentional control. This result may be due to a continuing attentional bias towards the cued location. Here we ask whether IOR can be unmasked under endogenous cueing conditions when a predictive cue prevents such a bias. In Experiment 1, a central arrow directed attention endogenously to one end of a rectangular object. Attention initially radiated to an unpredicted location in the object but IOR later impaired target detection at that location. In Experiment 2, attention was directed endogenously to a dynamic object. While target detection was facilitated at a subsequent (and predicted) location of the rotating object, detection-latencies at its original location were slowed. Together the results show that it is possible to produce IOR using endogenous cues.     

The global precedence effect is not affected in inhibition of return

This study assessed whether inhibitory processes occurring in IOR affect perceptual processing of hierarchically organised stimuli. Experiment 1 used a global/local task that presented stimuli to the left or the right side. Results showed a global task advantage and a larger interference in the local than in the global task—the global precedence effect (GPE). These effects were larger than in previous studies using centrally presented stimuli, which suggests a greater involvement of low spatial frequency analysis with peripheral than with central stimuli. Experiment 2 combined the global/local task with IOR. Results replicated those of Experiment 1 but there was no interaction with stimulus location. That is, the GPE was not affected in IOR. Thus, we conclude that the GPE and inhibitory processing occurring in IOR are subserved by different mechanisms.