Color-based inhibition of return

The inhibition of return of visual attention based on stimulus color was examined in three experiments. In the first experiment, a discrete trial paradigm showed that subjects were slower to detect a color patch if the color matched that of a patch presented earlier in the same location. Experiment 2 showed that the inhibition only occurs if a neutral, nontarget distractor color is presented between presentation of the initial color cue and the subsequent target patch—explaining the previous failures to detect the phenomenon. Experiment 3 extended the results to a different combination of colors. Taken together, the results have important implications for the processing of stimulus attributes such as spatial location and color, and for the conditions necessary for producing inhibition of return.     

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.     

Structure-based modulation of inhibition of return is triggered by object-internal but not occluding shape features

When attention is oriented to an object it is inhibited from returning to the same object following a short delay. This inhibition-of-return (IOR) effect is modulated by an edge discontinuity presented between cue and target—an effect referred to as structure-based modulation of IOR. Here we examined two alternative accounts for the structure-based modulation effect. On one account the modulation is caused by the presence of any intervening feature between cue and target. On another account the modulation is caused by edge-bounded (i.e., closed) regions of space, on which space-based selection mechanisms operate. We presented cues and targets on unsegmented and internally or externally segmented rectangles to examine the two alternative accounts for the effect. Contrary to the predictions of the two alternative accounts, structure-based modulation of IOR was found with the internally but not with the externally segmented displays. This supports our hypothesis that object-based IOR arises from perceptually complete and internally structured object representations.     

Structure-based modulation of inhibition of return is triggered by object-internal but not occluding shape features

When attention is oriented to an object it is inhibited from returning to the same object following a short delay. This inhibition-of-return (IOR) effect is modulated by an edge discontinuity presented between cue and target—an effect referred to as structure-based modulation of IOR. Here we examined two alternative accounts for the structure-based modulation effect. On one account the modulation is caused by the presence of any intervening feature between cue and target. On another account the modulation is caused by edge-bounded (i.e., closed) regions of space, on which space-based selection mechanisms operate. We presented cues and targets on unsegmented and internally or externally segmented rectangles to examine the two alternative accounts for the effect. Contrary to the predictions of the two alternative accounts, structure-based modulation of IOR was found with the internally but not with the externally segmented displays. This supports our hypothesis that object-based IOR arises from perceptually complete and internally structured object representations.     

Stimulus-response probability and inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slowed responding to targets at a location previously occupied by an irrelevant cue. Here we explore the interaction between stimulus-response (S-R) probability and IOR effects using go/no-go (Experiment 1) and two-choice discrimination tasks (Experiment 2). In both experiments, the IOR effect was larger for the likely S-R ensemble than for the unlikely one. In the first experiment, there were more false alarms for uncued targets than for cued targets, and this difference was larger for the unlikely S-R ensemble than for the likely one. In the second experiment, the same pattern was observed for incorrect keypress responses. As with voluntary orienting in response to predictive central cues, the results suggest that IOR affects late stages of processing by altering the criteria to respond to targets presented at the cued (previously attended) location.     

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.     

Auditory and audiovisual inhibition of return

Two experiments examined any inhibition-of-return (IOR) effects from auditory cues and from preceding auditory targets upon reaction times (RTs) for detecting subsequent auditory targets. Auditory RT was delayed if the preceding auditory cue was on the same side as the target, but was unaffected by the location of the auditorytarget from the preceding trial, suggesting that response inhibition for the cue may have produced its effects. By contrast, visual detection RT was inhibited by the ipsilateral presentation of a visual target on the preceding trial. In a third experiment, targets could be unpredictably auditory or visual, and no peripheral cues intervened. Both auditory and visual detection RTs were now delayed following an ipsilateral versus contralateral target in either modality on the preceding trial, even when eye position was monitored to ensure central fixation throughout. These data suggest that auditory target—target IOR arises only when target modality is unpredictable. They also provide the first unequivocal evidence for cross-modal IOR, since, unlike other recent studies (e.g., Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996; Tassinari & Berlucchi, 1995; Tassinari & Campara, 1996), the present cross-modal effects cannot be explained in terms of response inhibition for the cue. The results are discussed in relation to neurophysiological studies and audiovisual links in saccade programming.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Probing distractor inhibition in visual search: inhibition of return

The role of inhibition of return (IOR) in serial visual search was reinvestigated using R. Klein's (1988) paradigm of a search task followed by a probe-detection task. Probes were presented at either the location of a potentially inhibited search distractor or an empty location. No evidence of IOR was obtained when the search objects were removed after the search-task response. But when the search objects remained on, a pattern of effects similar to Klein's results emerged. However, when just the search-critical object parts were removed or when participants received immediate error feedback to prevent rechecking of the search objects, IOR effects were observed only when probes appeared equally likely at search array and empty locations. These results support the operation of object-based IOR in serial visual search, with IOR demonstrable only when rechecking is prevented (facilitating task switching) and monitoring for probes is not biased toward search objects.     

Object-based inhibition of return in static displays

After attention has been oriented to a location, inhibition mechanisms prevent the return of attention shortly afterward. This inhibition can be associated with an object in such a way that after cuing attention to the object, inhibition can move with the object to a new location. Recent research has noted that the object-based inhibition of return effect in moving displays is much smaller than the effect observed in static displays, and hence may be of little functional utility. However, we demonstrate that, on the contrary, the large effects observed in static displays are produced precisely because of the existence of object-based frames, which can be additive with location-based frames of reference.     

Spatial working memory and inhibition of return

Recently we showed that maintaining a location in spatial working memory affects saccadic eye movement trajectories, in that the eyes deviate away from the remembered location (Theeuwes, Olivers, & Chizk, 2005). Such saccade deviations are assumed to be the result of inhibitory processes within the oculomotor system. The present study investigated whether this inhibition is related to the phenomenon of inhibition of return (IOR), the relatively slow selection of previously attended locations as compared with new locations. The results show that the size of IOR to a location was not affected by whether or not the location was kept in working memory, but the size of the saccade trajectory deviation was affected. We conclude that inhibiting working memory-related eye movement activity is not the same as inhibiting a previously attended location in space.     

Long-term inhibition of return of attention

During search of the environment, the inhibition of the return (IOR) of attention to already-examined information ensures that the target will ultimately be detected. Until now, inhibition was assumed to support search of information during one processing episode. However, in some situations search may have to be completed long after it was begun. We therefore propose that inhibition can be associated with an episode encoded into memory such that later retrieval reinstates inhibitory processing and encourages examination of new information. In two experiments in which attention was drawn to face stimuli with an exogenous cue, we demonstrated for the first time the existence of long-term IOR. Interestingly, this was the case only for faces in the left visual field, perhaps because more efficient processing of faces in the right hemisphere than the left hemisphere results in richer, more retrievable memory representations.     

Vector averaging of inhibition of return

Observers detected targets presented 400 msec after a display containing one cue or two to four cues displayed simultaneously in randomly selected locations on a virtual circle around fixation. The cue arrangement was completely uninformative about the upcoming target’s location, and eye position was monitored to ensure that the participants maintained fixation between the cue and their manual detection response. Reflecting inhibition of return (IOR), there was a gradient of performance following single cues, with reaction time decreasing monotonically as the target’s angular distance from the cued direction increased. An equivalent gradient of IOR was found following multiple cues whose center of gravity fell outside the parafoveal region and, thus, whose net vector would activate an orienting response. Moreover, on these trials, whether or not the targeted location had been stimulated by a cue had little effect on this gradient. Finally, when the array of cues was balanced so that its center of gravity was at fixation, there was no IOR. These findings, which suggest that IOR is an aftermath of orienting elicited by the cue, are compatible with population coding of the entire cue (as a grouped array for multiple cues) as the generator of IOR.     

Oculomotor inhibition of return in normal and mindless reading

Oculomotor inhibition of return (O-IOR) is an increase in saccade latency prior to an eye movement to a recently fixated location, as compared with other locations. To investigate O-IOR in reading, subjects participated in two conditions while their eye movements were recorded: normal reading and mindless reading with words replaced by geometric shapes. We investigated the manifestation of O-IOR in reading and whether it is related to extracting meaning from the text or is an oculomotor phenomenon. The results indicated that fixation durations prior to a saccade returning to the immediately preceding fixated word were longer than those to other words, consistent with O-IOR. Furthermore, fixation durations were longest prior to a saccade that returned the eyes to the specific character position in the word that had previously been fixated and dropped off as the distance between the previously fixated character and landing position increased. This result is consistent with the hypothesis that O-IOR is relatively precise in its application during reading and drops off as a gradient. Both of these results were found for text reading and for mindless reading, suggesting that they are consequences of oculomotor control, and not of language processing. Finally, although these temporal IOR effects were robust, no spatial consequences of IOR were observed: Previously fixated words and characters were as likely to be refixated as new words and characters.     

Attentional tracking and inhibition of return in dynamic displays

Seven experiments were conducted to replicate, and extend, a finding by Tipper, Driver, and Weaver (1991). They reported evidence for dynamic, object-centered inhibition of return (IOR)—that is, coding of inhibition following a peripheral cue in coordinates that move with the previously cued object, providing a dynamic bias against reattending to that object. The present experiments used a variation of Posner and Cohen’s (1984) spatial cuing paradigm. Subjects responded manually (simple reaction time) to a luminance increment in one of two peripheral boxes, one of which had previously been cued (brightened). Experiments 1, 2, and 5 replicated the standard (environmental) IOR effect when the display was stationary. IOR was more marked for right-side targets than for left-side targets and tended to be affected by the compatibility between response hand and (cued) target position. However, when the boxes moved around the display center (Experiments 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7), contrary to Tipper et al., there was no evidence of dynamic, object-centered IOR. Rather, there was strong evidence of attentive tracking of whatever box happened to move from left to right, irrespective of the direction of its motion (clockwise or counterclockwise) and whether it was more likely to contain the target than the other (right-to-left moving) box. There was a tendency for left-to-right tracking to be more marked with right-hand responses, pointing to the existence of a dynamic stimulus-response compatibility effect. The implications of the present findings for the role of attentive tracking and IOR in dynamic scenes are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

Response selection influences inhibition of return

Previous work has suggested that there may be a relationship between the magnitude of inhibition of return (IOR) and the number of possible responses in the perceptual‐motor task. To test this possibility, the present experiment used a display that contained four horizontally aligned cue/target locations. In different blocks of trials, subjects responded to the target either with a one‐response detection key press, a two‐response localisation key press, or a four‐response localisation key press. The results showed the largest magnitude of IOR was found in the one‐response condition and the least in the four‐response condition. These results suggest that IOR may be most effective in inhibiting relatively prepotent responses and the inhibitory effect weakens when responses require more intricate sensorimotor mappings.