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.     

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。     

Facilitation versus inhibition in non-spatial attribute discrimination tasks

Inhibition of Return is a delay in initiating attentional shifts to previously inspected locations. It has been explained as a mechanism to facilitate visual search of a scene by inhibiting the allocation of attention to locations that have already been examined. We (Hu, Samuel, &; Chan, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2010) recently demonstrated that similar processing costs can appear when a non-spatial attribute (color or shape) repeats—detection of a target stimulus was slower if the target shared color or shape with a recently presented cue. In the current study, we test whether such inhibitory effects occur for non-spatial attribute repetition when observers must make a discrimination judgment about targets. We found two independent effects: First, there was a standard location-based IOR effect—target discrimination was slower when the target appeared in the same location as a preceding cue. Second, reaction times were faster if the target's color or shape matched the cue's color or shape; this facilitation effect contrasts with both the location-based inhibition that was present in the current experiments, and with the inhibitory effect of feature repetition in our previous detection task study. The data are best accounted for by a three-factor model recently suggested by Lupiáñez (Attention and time, 2010).     

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.     

Inhibitory effects of repeating color and shape: inhibition of return or repetition blindness?

There is a current debate regarding whether attention is influenced by stimulus attributes other than location. The present article replicates and extends previous findings that repeating the nonspatial attribute of color leads to a delay in target detection (M. B. Law, J. Pratt, & R. A. Abrams, 1995). Repetition disadvantage effects were found for the stimulus attributes of both color and shape, as well as for location. However, the nonspatial repetition disadvantage disappeared if the stimuli were presented in peripheral locations (Experiments 3a, 3b, and 4) or the cue was presented for 50 ms (Experiment 6). Moreover, the magnitude of the repetition disadvantage tended to decline as the cue-target stimulus-onset asynchrony increased (Experiments 5a, 5b, and 6). These results suggest that a repetition blindness mechanism may underlie the repetition disadvantage effects of nonspatial features, rather than an inhibition of return mechanism.     

Inhibition of return to color: A replication and nonextension of Law, Pratt, and Abrams (1995)

We presented subjects with an unpredictive cue that was followed after a 150- to 900-msec interstimulus interval (ISI) by a detection target. Cue and target were blue or red squares that appeared at fixation and in an otherwise uniform black field. In a filler condition, a task-irrelevant filler stimulus (magenta square) was presented during the ISI; in a no-filler condition, no stimulus appeared during the ISI. Using only a 900-msec ISI, Law, Pratt, and Abrams (1995) reported slower reaction times (RTs) when cue and target were the same color, but only when the task-irrelevant filler was presented during the ISI. They argued that attention is first drawn to the cue color and that inhibition of return (IOR; see Posner & Cohen, 1984) is established when attention is drawn away from that cue color representation by the task-irrelevant filler. Critical to their view is the assumption that IOR occurs only after attention is drawn away from the cue color by the filler. Assuming a time course for the withdrawal of attention from the cue color representation, Law et al. ’s view predicts growth of the inhibitory effect as a function of ISI in the filler condition as well as facilitation at early ISIs in the no-filler condition (because there is no filler to withdraw attention from the cue color). Contrary to these predictions, we found that the inhibitory effect observed by Law et al. at the 900-msec ISI was present at—and did not vary in magnitude across—the range of ISIs tested. And there was never facilitation in the no-filler condition. These results challenge Law et al. ’s inference that IOR for foveally presented colors was operating in their paradigm.     

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。     

Inhibition of return is unimpressed by emotional cues

Inhibition of return (IOR) is a phenomenon observed when a target unexpectedly appears in the place of a preceding cue: With long cue–target stimulus onset asynchronies, reaction times are longer than for targets that appear in an alternative location. Cognitive theories of anxiety suppose that the IOR effect diminishes with threatening, biologically relevant cues because these catch and hold attention. To test this hypothesis, we conducted three experiments, in which emotional valence of cues (animals or facial expressions) had no influence on the strength of the IOR effect, neither in an unselected sample of students nor in highly spider-fearful or socially anxious participants. Inhibition of return appears to be a robust effect, blind to cue valence.     

Predictability of the cue-target relation and the time-course of auditory inhibition of return

The possibility that the time-course of auditory inhibition of return (IOR) might depend on the temporal or spatial predictability of the cue-target relation was investigated. In all the experiments, a location cue was followed by a target that was to be localized. An inhibitory effect became apparent at a longer stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) when either the temporal or the spatial relation was predictable, rather than when either was unpredictable. A facilitative effect was apparent at a 100-msec SOA, irrespective of the predictability of the cue-target relation. These results establish that the time-course of the inhibitory component of location-based auditory IOR depends on the predictability of the temporal and spatial relations of cue and target. The theoretical implications of these results are considered, and a dual-process model of auditory selective attention is offered.     

Spatiotemporal distribution of facilitation and inhibition of return arising from the reflexive orienting of covert attention

Currently, there is debate regarding both the spatial and temporal relationship between facilitation and inhibition of return (IOR) components of attention, as observed on the covert orienting of visual attention task (COVAT). These issues were addressed in a series of experiments where the spatial and temporal relationships between cue and target were manipulated. Facilitation occurred only when the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) was short and there was temporal overlap between cue and target. IOR occurred only when SOA was long and there was no temporal overlap between cue and target. Facilitation encompassed the cued location and all locations between the cue and fixation, whereas IOR arose for the entire cued hemifield. These findings suggest that the facilitation and IOR found on COVATs that use noninformative peripheral cues are separable and stimulus-driven processes.     

The role of the fixation location in inhibition of return.

Experiments that have examined inhibition of return (IOR) have typically used trial sequences in which attention is reoriented to a central fixation location between the presentation of the peripheral cue(s) and the target. In examining the role of the fixation location in IOR, three experiments were conducted in which an exogenous cue was used to reorient attention following a peripheral cue and before the appearance of a target. However, this cue occurred at either the traditional central fixation location or a nonfixated location. The results indicate that reorienting attention to a fixated location results in a significant reduction in the inhibitory effect. The results from the study suggest that IOR could serve as a mechanism that improves the efficiency of visual searches.     

Effects of display complexity on location and feature inhibition

Inhibition of return refers to the lengthening of reaction times (RTs) to a target when a preceding stimulus has occupied the same location in space. Recently, we observed a robust inhibitory effect for color and shape in moderately complex displays: It is more difficult to detect a target with a particular nonspatial attribute if a stimulus with the same attribute was recently the focus of attention. Such nonspatial inhibitory effects have not generally been found in simpler displays. In the present study, we test how location-based and nonspatial inhibitory effects vary as a function of display complexity (eight, six, four, and two locations). The results demonstrated that (1) location-based inhibition effects were much stronger in more complex displays, whereas the nonspatial inhibition was only slightly stronger in more complex displays; (2) nonspatial inhibitory effects emerged at longer stimulus onset asynchronies than did location-based effects; and (3) nonspatial inhibition appeared only when cues and targets occurred in the same locations, confirming that pure feature repetition does not produce a cost. Taken together, the results are consistent with perceptual processes based on object files that are organized by spatial location. Using somewhat more complex displays than are most commonly employed provides a more sensitive method for observing the role of inhibitory processes in facilitating visual search. In addition, using a relatively wide set of cue–target timing relationships is necessary in order to clearly see how inhibitory effects operate.     

Does IOR occur in discrimination tasks? Yes, it does, but later

When a stimulus appears in a previously cued location several hundred milliseconds after the cue, the time required to detect that stimulus is greater than when it appears in an uncued location. This increase in detection time is known as inhibition of return (IOR). It has been suggested that IOR reflects the action of a general attentional mechanism that prevents attention from returning to previously explored loci. At the same time, the robustness of IOR has been recently disputed, given several failures to obtain the effect in tasks requiring discrimination rather than detection. In a series of eight experiments, we evaluated the differences between detection and discrimination tasks with regard to IOR. We found that IOR was consistently obtained with both tasks, although the temporal parameters required to observe IOR were different in detection and discrimination tasks. In our detection task, the effect appeared after a 400-msec delay between cue and target, and was still present after 1,300 msec. In our discrimination task, the effect appeared later and disappeared sooner. The implications of these data for theoretical accounts of IOR are discussed.     

Inhibition of return for target discriminations: the effect of repeating discriminated and irrelevant stimulus dimensions

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slowed reaction times when a target repeats in the same location as a preceding stimulus. In four experiments, the participants were presented with two successive stimuli, S1 and S2. In Experiments 1 and 2, the participants made a speeded discrimination of the identity or orientation of both S1 and S2 (Experiment 1) or of S2 only (Experiment 2). An IOR effect occurred for the repetition of stimulus location, but a facilitatory effect occurred if the stimulus remained unchanged or if an overt response was repeated. In Experiments 3 and 4, the participants localized S1 and S2 (Experiment 3) or S2 only (Experiment 4) to the left or right of center. In this case, repeating the same stimulus had no effect: IOR occurred any time stimulus location repeated. These results demonstrate that the expression of IOR is modulated by the repetition of a target object, but only when the task requires the discrimination of that object; when no discrimination is required, IOR is unaffected.     

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.     

Examining the time course of facilitation and inhibition with simultaneous onset and offset cues

The experiment conducted examined the effect of simultaneously presented onset and offset cues on the orienting of attention in the visual field. Subjects were presented with a display that consisted of four placeholder boxes around a central fixation point. An onset and an offset cue appeared simultaneously in two of the locations, and the other two locations provided a neutral baseline condition. Reaction times were measured in a simple target detection task with stimulus-onset asynchronies (SOAs) that ranged from 100 ms to 1,000 ms. As expected, the onset cue produced early facilitation and later occurring inhibition of return (IOR). The offset cue produced significant inhibition at all but the earliest SOA. These results suggest that simultaneously presented onset and offset cues both capture attention, but that attention is rapidly disengaged from the location of the offset cue, resulting in earlier occurring IOR. For the onset cues, attention is allocated for a longer period of time, producing the typical pattern of early facilitation and later occurring IOR. The differing time course of attention at each location may reflect separate facilitatory and inhibitory processes, and the priority given to the onset of a stimulus by the attentional system.     

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。     

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.     

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.     

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.