The effect of previous trial type on inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the finding that targets appearing at previously cued locations are more slowly responded to than targets appearing at previously uncued locations when a relatively long temporal interval occurs between the cue and target. This experiment was conducted to determine whether the magnitude of IOR is influenced by the type of preceding trial (cued or uncued) and/or the location of the cue/target on the previous trial. Although no effect of cue/target location is observed, there was a marked effect of previous trial type, as IOR was greater following an uncued trial relative to a cued trial. This effect was attributable to differences in the response time as a function of previous trial type: specifically, participants were faster to respond to cued and uncued trials when the previous trial type was identical.     

不同SOA下视觉返回抑制对视听觉整合的调节作用

基于外源性线索-靶子范式, 采用2(线索-靶子间隔时间, stimulus onset asynchronies, SOA：400~600 ms、1000~1200 ms) × 3(目标刺激类型：视觉、听觉、视听觉) × 2(线索有效性：有效线索、无效线索)的被试内实验设计, 要求被试对目标刺激完成检测任务, 以考察视觉线索诱发的返回抑制(inhibition of return, IOR)对视听觉整合的调节作用, 从而为感知觉敏感度、空间不确定性及感觉通道间信号强度差异假说提供实验证据。结果发现：(1) 随SOA增长, 视觉IOR效应显著降低, 视听觉整合效应显著增强; (2) 短SOA (400~600 ms)时, 有效线索位置上的视听觉整合效应显著小于无效线索位置, 但长SOA (1000~1200 ms)时, 有效与无效线索位置上的视听觉整合效应并无显著差异。结果表明, 在不同SOA条件下, 视觉IOR对视听觉整合的调节作用产生变化, 当前结果支持感觉通道间信号强度差异假说。     

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.     

Averaging saccades are repelled by prior uninformative cues at both short and long intervals

When two spatially proximal stimuli are presented simultaneously, a first saccade is often directed to an intermediate location between the stimuli (averaging saccade). In an earlier study, Watanabe (2001) showed that, at a long cue–target onset asynchrony (CTOA; 600 ms), uninformative cues not only slowed saccadic response times (SRTs) to targets presented at the cued location in single target trials (inhibition of return, IOR), but also biased averaging saccades away from the cue in double target trials. The present study replicated Watanabe's experimental task with a short CTOA (50 ms), as well as with mixed short (50 ms) and long (600 ms) CTOAs. In all conditions on double target trials, uninformative cues robustly biased averaging saccades away from cued locations. Although SRTs on single target trials were delayed at previously cued locations at both CTOAs when they were mixed, this delay was not observed in the blocked, short CTOA condition. We suggest that top-down factors, such as expectation and attentional control settings, may have asymmetric effects on the temporal and spatial dynamics of oculomotor processing.     

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.     

Inhibition of return in manual and saccadic response systems

When nonpredictive exogenous visual cues are used to reflexively orient covert visual spatial attention, the initial early facilitation for detecting stimuli at cued versus uncued spatial locations develops into inhibition by 300 msec following the cue, a pattern referred to as inhibition of return (IOR). Experiments were carried out comparing the magnitude and time course for development of IOR effects when manual versus saccadic responses were required. The results showed that both manual and saccadic responses result in equivalent amounts of facilitation following initial exposure to a spatial cue. However, IOR developed more quickly for saccadic responses, such that, at certain cue-target SOAs, saccadic responses to targets were inhibited, whereas manual responses were still facilitated. The findings are interpreted in terms of a premotor theory of visual attention.     

自我面孔对返回抑制的影响:来自指数高斯分布的证据

采用线索—靶子范式及指数高斯分布拟合技术,观测自我面孔对返回抑制的调节作用。平均反应时结果显示,与他人面孔相比,自我面孔作为线索也出现了返回抑制,但抑制量明显下降。表明自我面孔对返回抑制有一定调节作用。指数高斯分布拟合结果显示,返回抑制的线索化效应体现在高斯参数上,自我面孔的调节效应体现在指数参数上。提示返回抑制在知觉层面会比较稳定地发生;自我面孔可能主要通过影响个体对靶子的反应决策阈限实现调节。     

Disinhibition of return: Unnecessary and unlikely

Recently, from data obtained with a temporal order judgment (TOJ) task, Gibson and Egeth (1994) concluded that inhibition of return (IOR; a response time effect that reveals slower responding to targets at previously cued versus uncued locations) reflects impaired perceptual processing. By replotting their data, we demonstrate that the perception of temporal order is influenced only by the facilitatory effect of a cue at short stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) and is unaffected by IOR at long SO As. The target paper proposed that, when extra stimuli are presented at task-relevant locations (i.e., in the TOJ task), IOR is prevented by a hypothetical process that is known as disinhibition of return (DOR). We argue that the assumptions that IOR affects perceptual processing and that DOR exists are unnecessary, as a more parsimonious response-based interpretation of IOR is consistent with their data. Further, we summarize recent results and present new data that demonstrate that DOR is unlikely.     

On the causes and effects of inhibition of return

Unpredictive visual transient cues have a biphasic effect on reaction times (RTs) to peripheral onset targets. At relatively short (e.g., 150-msec) cue-target stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs), RTs to targets at cued versus uncued locations are facilitated, whereas at relatively long SOAs (e.g., beyond 300 msec), they are inhibited. The present review explores the conditions under which this latter, inhibitory, effect-referred to as inhibition of return (IOR; Posner & Cohen, 1984)—is revealed and those conditions under which it is generated. We argue that the extant literature converges on the view that IOR reflects a motor response bias that is generated by the activation of an oculomotor program to fixate the cue. However, we reveal that current conceptualizations of IOR are based on a limited sampling of possible tests of the generation and measurement of IOR and indicate where further experimental research is critical.     

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.     

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.     

Objects and their locations in exogenous cuing

Anatomical, physiological, and behavioral studies provide support for separate object- and locationbased components of visual attention. Although studies of object-based components have usually involved voluntary attention, more recent evidence has suggested that objects may play an independent role in reflexiveexogenous orienting, at least at long stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). In the present experiments, the role of objects in reflexive attentional orienting was investigated by developing a task in which location and object cuing could be separately examined for both short and long SOAs. Typical location cuing effects were obtained, indicating facilitation at short cue—target intervals and inhibition of return (IOR) at longer intervals. In contrast, object cuing resulted in facilitation for cued objects at long cue—target intervals and no object-based IOR. Interestingly, object cuing primarily affected targets at cued locations, and not those at uncued locations. Together, the experiments examine the interactive nature of objects and locations in exogenous orienting and seem most consistent with a location-mediated view of object-based orienting.     

Disentangling perceptual and motor components in inhibition of return

Following an abrupt onset of a peripheral stimulus (a cue), the response to a visual target is faster when the target appears at the cued position than when it appears at other positions. However, if the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) is longer than approximately 300 ms, the response to the target is slower at the cued position than that at other positions. This phenomenon of a longer response time to cued targets is called "inhibition of return" (IOR). Previous hypotheses propose contributions of both response inhibition and attentional inhibition at cued position to IOR, and suggest that responding to the cue can eliminate the component of response inhibition. The current study uses tasks either executing or withholding response to the cue to investigate the relative contributions of response and attention components to IOR. A condition with bilateral display of the cue is also chosen as a control condition, and eight different SOAs between 1,000 and 2,750 ms are tested. Compared to the control condition, response delay to the target at a cued position is eliminated by responding to the cue, and a response advantage to the target at an uncued position is not affected by responding to the cue. Furthermore, both response delay at a cued position and response advantage at an uncued position decrease with SOA in the time window tested in these experiments. The results reported here indicate a dominant response inhibition at a cued position and a primary attentional allocation at an uncued position for IOR. Nonsignificant perceptual/attentional suppression at a cued position is argued to be a benefit for visual detection in a changing world.     

On the role of eye movements and saccade preparation in generating auditory inhibition of return.

In three experiments, listeners were required to either localize or identify the second of two successive sounds. The first sound (the cue) and the second sound (the target) could originate from either the same or different locations, and the interval between the onsets of the two sounds (Stimulus Onset Asynchrony, SOA) was varied. Sounds were presented out of visual range at 135 azimuth left or right. In Experiment 1, localization responses were made more quickly at 100 ms SOA when the target sounded from the same location as the cue (i.e., a facilitative effect), and at 700 ms SOA when the target and cue sounded from different locations (i.e., an inhibitory effect). In Experiments 2 and 3, listeners were required to monitor visual information presented directly in front of them at the same time as the auditory cue and target were presented behind them. These two experiments differed in that in order to perform the visual task accurately in Experiment 3, eye movements to visual stimuli were required. In both experiments, a transition from facilitation at a brief SOA to inhibition at a longer SOA was observed for the auditory task. Taken together these results suggest that location-based auditory IOR is not dependent on either eye movements or saccade programming to sound locations.     

Two spatially separated attention systems in the visual field: evidence from inhibition of return

It has been demonstrated that the human visual field shows some functional inhomogeneities, in particular when the central and perifoveal regions are compared to the more peripheral regions. The present study examined this inhomogeneity by examining the effect of stimulus eccentricity on inhibition of return (IOR), a phenomenon that biases our attention towards novel locations against returning it back to previously attended locations. Eighteen subjects were examined in a visual detection task, in which a target appeared randomly following a nonpredictive spatial cue in the visual field. The eccentricities of the cues and targets were systematically manipulated from 5° to 30° with 5° increments. Results showed that response times to targets that appeared at cued locations were significantly slower than those at uncued locations for all stimulus eccentricities, demonstrating the IOR effects. However, response times at cued locations increased significantly when stimulus eccentricity shifted from 15° to 20°, leading to a much stronger IOR effect at more peripheral regions compared to central and perifoveal regions, indicating a functional dissociation between these two regions of the visual field. Possible neural mechanisms underlying this dissociation are discussed, and two attention systems modulating the two functional regions of the visual field are put forward to best account the present finding implicating in particular midbrain mechanism.     

Individual performance based on cognitive experimental measurements? The case of inhibition of return

Inhibition of Return (IOR) is a mechanism whereby the attentional system favors novel locations by inhibiting already scanned ones. In spatial attention tasks, it commonly occurs when the interval between cue onset and target onset is longer than 300 ms. The positive difference between reactions in the valid condition and those in the invalid one shows that responses to target stimuli are slower following a valid cue than responses to target stimuli following an invalid cue. IOR is a very robust phenomenon at the group mean level; however, this study demonstrates that its standard error of measurement is extremely high, which seriously challenges any attempt to interpret an individual score as representing the characteristics of a subject's attention system. Furthermore, this reliability problem might diminish the likelihood of finding differences between groups and conditions. The study shows that these problems may be partially corrected by employing the back-to-center paradigm.     

试次历史对跨通道非空间返回抑制的影响

个体对刺激的反应不仅受刺激本身的影响, 还会受到先前刺激的影响, 表现为对当前试次中刺激的反应会受到前一试次的影响, 即试次历史。本研究采用“线索-中性线索-靶子”范式探讨前一试次有效性对跨通道的非空间返回抑制的影响。实验1通过连续两个试次间的线索有效性考察在跨通道非空间返回抑制中试次历史的影响。为了在跨通道非空间返回抑制中减小试次历史的影响, 实验2通过延长试次间时间间隔考察跨通道非空间返回抑制中试次历史的作用是否减小。结果发现, 前一试次线索无效时, 当前试次中的返回抑制效应量显著小于前一试次有效时, 这种影响会根据试次中线索和靶子通道的不同而不同。并且当延长试次间的时间间隔可以有效地减少前一试次对当前试次的影响。因此本研究表明, 试次历史能够对跨通道非空间返回抑制产生影响, 并且这种影响可以通过增大试次间时间间隔来减小。     

Inhibitory interaction: the effects of multiple non-predictive visual cues

When the interval between a non-predictive cue and a target appearing at the same spatial location is longer than about 200 ms, target performance is typically poorer than when the cue and target appear at different locations. Recent studies have shown that this effect, known as inhibition of return (IOR), can occur at multiple cued locations, and is enhanced when multiple cues are presented at the same spatial location. However, little is known about how the magnitude of IOR at one spatial location is influenced by a subsequent or preceding cue presented at a different spatial location. We investigated this issue by presenting single or multiple cues at varying inter-cue intervals prior to target onset. Results suggest that the magnitude of IOR at a given location is influenced by the presentation of a preceding cue, but that once IOR occurs, it is unaffected by the presentation of a subsequent cue.     

Effects of spatial cues on locating emotional targets

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slower responding to a visual target appearing at a previously cued versus uncued location. In three experiments, we asked whether IOR would be affected by the emotional content of target stimuli. Participants reported the location of negative (spiders, angry faces) or neutral (objects, neutral faces) targets as quickly and accurately as possible after a valid or invalid location cue (a simple circle). IOR was significantly smaller when detecting negative versus neutral targets, but only after repeated exposures to these stimuli (i.e., with blocked presentations). This effect was eliminated when target type was randomized within blocks. By presenting negative versus neutral targets in short alternating blocks and examining IOR on the first trial of each new block, we show that the emotional modulation of IOR stems from the affective context in place before visual orienting is initiated, not by perceptual processing of the target after cue offset.     

Inhibition of return following instructions to remember and forget.

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slowed responding to a target that appears in the same rather than in a different location as a preceding peripheral onset cue. This study examined IOR as a function of whether the peripheral onset cue was a word that participants were directed to remember or forget. Using a modified item-method directed forgetting paradigm, words appeared one at a time to the left or right, followed by a remember or forget instruction. A target dot was then presented either in the same peripheral location as the preceding word or in a different location; participants made a speeded response to localize this target. Confirming compliance with the memory instructions, recall tests that alternated with blocks of IOR trials (Experiment 1) revealed few intrusions of to-be-forgotten words, and a final recognition test (Experiments 1 and 3) revealed more hits for to-be-remembered words than for to-be-forgotten words. Reaction times to the target dot revealed greater magnitude IOR following to-be-forgotten words than following to-be-remembered words (Experiments 1 and 3). Moreover, when compared to baseline IOR values (Experiment 2), it appeared that this difference resulted from a magnification of IOR following forget instructions and a reduction in IOR following remember instructions. These results demonstrate the usefulness of IOR as an index of memorial processes and suggest that attentional orienting may play a role in the remembering and forgetting of words presented in peripheral visual locations.