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.     

The effects of ignored versus foveated cues upon inhibition of return: An event-related potential study

Taylor and Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26:1639–1656, 2000) discovered two mutually exclusive “flavors” of inhibition of return (IOR): When the oculomotor system is “actively suppressed,” IOR affects input processes (the perception/attention flavor), whereas when the oculomotor system is “engaged,” IOR affects output processes (the motor flavor). Studies of brain activity with ignored cues have typically reported that IOR reduces an early sensory event-related potential (ERP) component (i.e., the P1 component) of the brain’s response to the target. Since eye movements were discouraged in these experiments, the P1 reduction might be a reflection of the perception/attention flavor of IOR. If, instead of ignoring the cue, participants made a prosaccade to the cue (and then returned to fixation) before responding to the target, the motor flavor of IOR should then be generated. We compared these two conditions while monitoring eye position and recording ERPs to the targets. If the P1 modulation is related to the perceptual/attentional flavor of IOR, we hypothesized that it might be absent when the motoric flavor of IOR was generated by a prosaccade to the cue. Our results demonstrated that target-related P1 reductions and behavioral IOR were similar, and significant, in both conditions. However, P1 modulations were significantly correlated with behavioral IOR only when the oculomotor system was actively suppressed, suggesting that P1 modulations may only affect behaviorally exhibited IOR when the attentional/perceptual flavor of IOR is recruited.     

Just passing through? Inhibition of return in saccadic sequences

Responses tend to be slower to previously fixated spatial locations, an effect known as “inhibition of return” (IOR). Saccades cannot be assumed to be independent, however, and saccade sequences programmed in parallel differ from independent eye movements. We measured the speed of both saccadic and manual responses to probes appearing in previously fixated locations when those locations were fixated as part of either parallel or independent saccade sequences. Saccadic IOR was observed in independent but not parallel saccade sequences, while manual IOR was present in both parallel and independent sequence types. Saccadic IOR was also short-lived, and dissipated with delays of more than ～1500?ms between the intermediate fixation and the probe onset. The results confirm that the characteristics of IOR depend critically on the response modality used for measuring it, with saccadic and manual responses giving rise to motor and attentional forms of IOR, respectively. Saccadic IOR is relatively short-lived and is not observed at intermediate locations of parallel saccade sequences, while attentional IOR is long-lasting and consistent for all sequence types.     

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 strategic modulation of the time course of facilitation and inhibition of return

In studies of exogenous attentional orienting, response times for targets at previously cued locations are often longer than those for targets at previously uncued locations. This effect is known widely as inhibition of return (IOR). There has been debate as to whether IOR can be observed in discrimination as well as detection tasks. The experiments reported here confirm that IOR can be observed when target discrimination is required and that the cue-target interval at which IOR is observed is often longer in discrimination than in detection tasks. The results also demonstrate that the later emergence of IOR is related to perceptual discrimination rather than to response selection differences between discrimination and detection tasks. More difficult discrimination tasks lengthen the SOA at which IOR emerges. In contrast, increasing task difficulty by adding a distractor to the location opposite the target shortens the SOA at which IOR emerges. Together, the results reveal an adaptive interaction between exogenous and endogenous attentional systems, in which the action of the orienting (exogenous) system is modulated endogenously in accord with task demands.     

Electrophysiological modulations of exogenous attention by intervening events

The present study used event related potentials (ERPs) in a spatial cueing procedure to investigate the stages of processing influenced by intervening events presented between cues and targets, when they produce maximal behavioural modulations (i.e., facilitation in the absence of the intervening event, and inhibition of return – IOR, when the intervening event is presented). Our data challenge the traditional orienting–reorienting hypothesis, leading to alternative explanations of cueing effects that are beyond the orienting of attention. Peripheral cues always produced a detection cost (reflected in a reduced amplitude of the P100 component for cued as compared to uncued trials), independently on the behavioural effect that was measured. In contrast, facilitation was associated to modulations of later-stage components, such as N100, Nd, and P300. The N2pc component, usually associated to spatial selection, was the only component reflecting opposite and significant modulations associated to the behavioural effect. The present results suggest that facilitation and IOR can arise from changes at different stages of processing. We propose that the perceptual detection cost (reflected on the P100), and the hindered spatial selection (reflected on the N2pc) at the cued location determine the IOR effect at least in discrimination tasks, while the contribution of the later-stage components, beside attentional processes, determines other facilitatory effects of cueing, which altogether determine the behavioural effect that is measured.     

Irrelevant onsets cause inhibition of return regardless of attentional set

It is disputed whether onsets capture spatial attention either in a purely stimulus-driven fashion or only when they are contingent on one's attentional set. According to the latter assumption, interference from irrelevant onsets may result from nonspatial filtering costs. In the present study, we used inhibition of return (IOR) as a marker for spatial attention. IOR occurs mainly for locations that attention has visited before. Participants searched for a red object among white objects. An attentional set for redness was demonstrated by a spatial validity effect of red cues on response times. However, a stronger validity effect was found for irrelevant white onsets, which slowed responses when the onset contained a distractor, but speeded them when the onset contained a target. Most importantly, this onset benefit for targets turned into a deficit at longer SOAs, indicating IOR. We conclude that onset distractors capture spatial attention regardless of the observer's attentional set.     

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.     

Attentional momentum does not underlie the inhibition of return effect.

J. Pratt, T. M. Spalek, and F. Bradshaw (1999) recently proposed that attentional momentum is the mechanism underlying the inhibition of return (IOR) effect. They suggested that momentum associated with an attentional movement away from a peripherally cued location and toward an uncued opposite location is essential and fundamental to the finding of an IOR effect. Although it is clear from the present study and from a reanalysis of data from Pratt et al. that response time can be facilitated at an uncued opposite location, this putative effect of attentional momentum is neither robust nor reliable. First, it occurs for only a minority of participants. Second, it occurs in only a subset of the cued display positions. And finally, it is uncorrelated with the occurrence of IOR. Together the data indicate that the attentional momentum hypothesis is an overgeneralization and that it does not underlie the robust and reliable IOR effect.     

Inhibition of return from stimulus to response

In a standard inhibition-of-return (IOR) paradigm using a manual key-press response, we examined the effect of IOR both on the amplitude of early sensory event-related brain potential (ERP) components and on the motor-related lateralized readiness potential (LRP). IOR was associated with a delay of premotor processes (target-locked LRP latency) and reduced sensory ERP activity. No effect of IOR was found on motor processes (response-locked LRP latency). Thus, IOR must arise at least in part from changes in perceptual processes, and, at least when measured with manual key presses, IOR does not arise from inhibition of motor processes. These results are consistent with the results of attention-orienting studies and provide support for an inhibition-of-attention explanation for IOR.     

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.     

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.     

Visual and motor effects in inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slowed reaction times (RTs) when a target appears in the same rather than a different location as a preceding stimulus. The present study tested the hypothesis that IOR reflects a motor bias rather than a perceptual deficit. Two signals (S1 and S2) were presented on each trial. These signals were peripheral onsets or central arrows. The responses required to S1 and S2 were, respectively, no response-manual, manual-manual, saccadic-manual, no response-saccadic, manual-saccadic, and saccadic-saccadic. Uniting perceptual and motor bias views of IOR, the results demonstrated inhibition for responding to (a) peripheral signals when the eyes remained fixed (slowed visual processing) and (b) both peripheral and central signals when the eyes moved (slowed motor production). However, the results also emphasized that the nature of IOR depends fundamentally on the response modality used to reveal its influence.     

Effects of different attentional strategies and practice on motor efficiency

The effect of different attentional strategies on motor efficiency, measured by reaction-response time components, has historically been based on memory-drum construct theory, which implied limited attention and motor-response processing. The present study contrasts these principles by using a recording system and automatic analysis of reaction-response parameters. A within-subject design allowed detailed observation of the frequency of each preparatory set within each parameter and with control of the effects of practice. Analysis indicates (a) practice changes the effects of the attentional strategies on the components of reaction response but not the actual movement; (b) the motor-set strategy produces shorter movement times and, inversely, higher motor reaction times; and (c) the motor-sensory set integrated strategy produces improvements on each component of the reaction response. These findings suggest the memory-drum construct theory needs revision and should be based on other attentional models.     

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.     

Larger IOR effects following forget than following remember instructions depend on exogenous attentional withdrawal and target localization

When words are onset in the visual periphery, inhibition of return (IOR) for a subsequent target is larger when those words receive an intervening forget instruction than when they receive a remember instruction Taylor (Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 613-629, 2005). The present study manipulated the allocation of endogenous and exogenous attention to assess the source of the forget > remember IOR difference. We determined that the forget > remember IOR difference likely arises from the differential withdrawal of exogenous-rather than endogenous-attention. Furthermore, this forget > remember IOR difference occurs only when a spatially compatible localization response is required; it does not occur when a simple detection response or a perceptual discrimination is required. This suggests that the forget > remember difference in the magnitude of IOR is not due to differences in perceptual/attentional processing. Instead, an instruction to remember or forget biases spatial responses in accordance with whether a location has previously contained relevant or irrelevant information. We suggest that directed forgetting in an item-method paradigm is not accomplished by changes in attention; rather, the changes in attention are coincident with changes in memory and may serve to bias later responses away from a source of unreliable information.     

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。     

Does “inhibition of return” occur in discrimination tasks?

When attention is drawn to a location and then withdrawn, responding to a stimulus at that location may be slower than to one at a new location. This “inhibition of return” (IOR) has not been reliably demonstrated in tasks that require discrimination of targets from nontargets. The present experiments replicated IOR in detection and localization tasks only when target/nontarget discrimination was not also required. When discrimination was required, a consistent samelocation advantage occurred for repeated targets. Changed targets may, however, induce a bias toward opposite responses. The results cast doubt on IOR as a general attentional phenomenon.     

Perceptual and motor inhibition of return: components or flavors?

The most common evidence for inhibition of return (IOR) is the robust finding of increased response times to targets that appear at previously cued locations following a cue?Ctarget interval exceeding ~300?ms. In a variation on this paradigm, Abrams and Dobkin (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20:467?C477, 1994b) observed that IOR was greater when measured with a saccadic response to a peripheral target than with that to a central arrow, leading to the conclusion that saccadic responses to peripheral targets comprise motoric and perceptual components (the two-components theory for saccadic IOR), whereas saccadic responses to a central target comprise a single motoric component. In contrast, Taylor and Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26:1639?C1656, 2000) discovered that IOR for saccadic responses was equivalent for central and peripheral targets, suggesting a single motoric effect under these conditions. Rooted in methodological differences between the studies, three possible explanations for this discrepancy can be found in the literature. Here, we demonstrate that the empirical discrepancy is rooted in the following methodological difference: Whereas Abrams and Dobkin (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20:467?C477, 1994b) administered central arrow and peripheral onset targets in separate blocks, Taylor and Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26:1639?C1656, 2000) randomly intermixed these stimuli in a single block. Our results demonstrate that (1) blocking central arrow targets fosters a spatial attentional control setting that allows for the long-lasting IOR normally generated by irrelevant peripheral cues to be filtered and (2) repeated sensory stimulation has no direct effect on the magnitude of IOR measured by saccadic responses to targets presented about 1?s after a peripheral cue.