Influence of endogenous and exogenous orientations of attention on inhibition of return in a cross-modal target-target aiming task

The authors conducted 2 experiments in which participants (N = 16 in each) executed successive unimanual aiming movements to target locations that were indicated by the onset of either an auditory or a visual stimulus. In Experiment 1 (exogenous orientation), inhibition of return (IOR) effects were observed, with reliable reaction time (RT) costs associated with movements returning to the same target and a trend toward larger IOR effects in left than in right space. There was no influence of stimulus modality on the magnitude of IOR. IOR was also observed in Experiment 2 (endogenous orientation), except the influence of stimulus modality reliably mediated those effect. In that case, IOR was evident only when the previous modality was visual and the current modality was auditory. Together, the results of those 2 experiments suggest that in situations in which 2 paired movements constitute the response criteria, IOR is both supramodal and lateralized to contralateral space.     

Inhibition of return and manual pointing movements

To examine whether the motor inhibition of return (IOR) postulated by Taylor and Klein (1998, 2000) generalizes to manual guided movements or is restricted to saccadic responses, the following three experiments were conducted. The first experiment combined peripheral cues (which generate IOR) with four types of manual responses made to central targets (central arrow indicating the response location). The responses were made on a touch-screen and were the equivalent of either a detection keypress, a choice keypress, a detection-guided pointing movement, or a choice-guided pointing movement. No IOR was found for any of the responses. The second experiment replicated the main result under eye fixation control. In Experiment 3, peripheral cues and peripheral targets were used, and IOR was present in all responses. Overall, these finding suggest that motor-based IOR is restricted to the oculomotor system. Implications for motor-based IOR and attention-based IOR are discussed.     

真实场景搜索中的眼动返回抑制

眼动返回抑制是指眼睛返回至先前注视过的位置(客体)时眼跳潜伏期长、可能性低的一种抑制现象。近年来, 研究者对真实场景搜索中的眼动返回抑制进行了深入的研究。本文介绍了相关研究的经典实验范式、主要发现及其理论解释, 探讨了眼动返回抑制的容量、眼动返回抑制是否具有任务特异性、场景搜索中是否存在眼动返回促进以及眼动返回抑制的神经基础等问题, 并指出未来该领域研究的方向和途径。     

听觉障碍人群检测任务基于位置的返回抑制

基于位置的返回抑制（IOR）是指对先前注意过的位置上靶子反应变慢的现象。探讨听觉障碍被试检测任务IOR的时程和量是否受听觉剥夺的影响。实验1中,听觉障碍被试和听力正常组被试具有相同的IOR时程和量;但在取消中央线索化的实验2中,当SOA为350ms时,听力正常被试没有出现IOR,听觉障碍被试出现了IOR,说明听觉障碍被试的注意脱离快于听力正常被试。听觉障碍被试对外周靶子的反应快于听力正常被试,表明听障人群外周注意资源增强。这些结果表明听觉障碍被试的空间注意更具有效性和策略性。     

Inhibition of return functions within but not across searches

Inhibition of return (IOR) facilitates visual search by discouraging the reinspection of recently processed items. We investigated whether IOR operates across two consecutive searches of the same display for different targets. In Experiment 1, we demonstrated that IOR is present within each of the two searches. In Experiment 2, we found no evidence for IOR across searches. In Experiment 3, we showed that IOR is present across the two searches when the first search is interrupted, suggesting that the completion of the search is what causes the resetting of IOR. We concluded that IOR is a partially flexible process that can be reset when the task completes, but not necessarily when it changes. When resetting occurs, this flexibility ensures that the inhibition of previously visited locations does not interfere with the new search.     

Reduced habituation to angry faces: increased attentional capture as to override inhibition of return

The aim of this paper was to study whether real angry faces do capture attention to the extent of overcoming the inhibition of return (IOR) effect and whether the anxiety level of participants modulates this effect by stressing biases toward threatening stimuli. With this purpose, participants categorized the emotional valence of face targets in a standard spatial cueing procedure suitable to measure IOR. In Experiment 1, participants were selected according to their high vs. low-trait anxiety, whereas in Experiment 2 participants were induced a positive vs. anxiety mood state. The typical IOR effect was observed with neutral and happy face targets, which disappeared with angry face targets. Similar results were observed for all anxiety groups and in both experiments. The results indicate that IOR is overridden when the target is a biologically relevant angry face, as highly relevant targets should suffer less from habituation to attentional capture regardless of anxiety. We suggest that these data show that attentional capture is less likely to habituate for threatening information, so that no cost is measured in detecting new threatening information appearing at recently cued locations.     

Inhibition of return in static but not necessarily in dynamic search

If and when search involves the serial inspection of items by covert or overt attention, its efficiency would be enhanced by a mechanism that would discourage reinspections of items or regions of the display that had already been examined. Klein (1988, 2000; Klein & Dukewich, 2006) proposed that inhibition of return (IOR) might be such a mechanism. The present experiments explored this proposal by combining a dynamic search task (Horowitz & Wolfe, 1998, 2003) with a probe-detection task. IOR was observed when search was most efficient (static and slower dynamic search). IOR was not observed when search performance was less efficient (fast dynamic search).These findings are consistent with the “foraging facilitator” proposal of IOR and are unpredicted by theories of search that assume parallel accumulation of information across the array (plus noise) as a general explanation for the effect of set size upon search performance.     

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.     

Inhibition of return for the discrimination of faces

When a target appears unpredictably in the same rather than a different location relative to a preceding onset cue, reaction times (RTs) of participants tasked with responding to the target are slowed. This pattern of results, referred to as inhibition of return (IOR), is believed to reflect the operation of a mechanism that prevents perseverative search of nontarget locations. On the grounds that an evolved mechanism might be sensitive to social stimuli, Taylor and Therrien (2005) examined IOR for localization responses under conditions in which cues and targets could be intact face configurations or nonface configurations; contrary to their predictions, there was no influence of cue or target configuration on the magnitude of IOR, indicating that the mere occurrence of task-irrelevant face and nonface stimuli does not alter IOR. In the present study, we further examined this issue in a task that required a face/nonface target discrimination. When target configuration was thereby made task relevant, we found that IOR differed for face and nonface targets in terms of magnitude (when a single cue-target stimulus onset asynchrony was employed) and time course. We suggest that the RT delay associated with IOR may enable additional processing time and/or response selection when a task-relevant face is presented at the cued location.     

面孔性别辨认中返回抑制效应的性别差异

采用线索-靶子实验范式, 要求被试完成面孔性别辨认任务, 从注意定向方面探讨面孔性别靶刺激返回抑制效应的性别差异。结果显示有效线索位置上面孔性别靶刺激的反应时均显著长于无效线索位置上的面孔性别靶刺激的反应时, 即表现出明显的返回抑制效应。进一步分析显示, 男性被试对同性和异性面孔靶刺激的返回抑制量无显著差异, 表明男性对面孔刺激的返回抑制不受面孔性别的影响; 而卵泡期女性对异性面孔靶刺激的返回抑制量显著小于黄体期女性, 表明女性对面孔靶刺激的返回抑制量与面孔性别和生理周期的交互作用有关。这些结果再一次为返回抑制的盲目机制提供了部分实验证据, 同时我们推测面孔性别对返回抑制的影响可能依赖于观察者对性信息的敏感性。     

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.     

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.     

Automatic and intentional memory processes in visual search

Previous research has indicated that saccade target selection during visual search is influenced by scanning history. Already inspected items are less likely to be chosen as saccade targets as long as the number intervening saccades is small. Here, we adapted Jacoby’s (1991) process dissociation procedure to assess the role of intentional and automatic processes in saccade target selection. Results indicate a large automatic component biasing participants to move their eyes to unexamined locations. However, an intentional component allowed participants to both reinspect old items and aid their selection of new items. A second experiment examined inhibition of return (IOR) as a candidate for the observed automatic component. IOR was found for items that had been previously examined. It is concluded that both automatic and intentional memory traces are available to guide the eyes during search.     

Motor IOR revealed for reaching

Inhibition of return (IOR) is a spatial phenomenon that is thought to promote visual search functions by biasing attention and eye movements toward novel locations. Considerable research suggests distinct sensory and motor flavors of IOR, but it is not clear whether the motor type can affect responses other than eye movements. Most studies claiming to reveal motor IOR in the reaching control system have been confounded by their use of peripheral signals, which can invoke sensory rather than motor-based inhibitory effects. Other studies have used central signals to focus on motor, rather than sensory, effects in arm movements but have failed to observe IOR and have concluded that the motor form of IOR is restricted to the oculomotor system. Here, we show the first clear evidence that motor IOR can be observed for reaching movements when participants respond to consecutive central stimuli. This observation suggests that motor IOR serves a more general function than the facilitation of visual search, perhaps reducing the likelihood of engaging in repetitive behavior.     

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.     

Does oculomotor inhibition of return influence fixation probability during scene search?

Oculomotor inhibition of return (IOR) is believed to facilitate scene scanning by decreasing the probability that gaze will return to a previously fixated location. This "foraging" hypothesis was tested during scene search and in response to sudden-onset probes at the immediately previous (one-back) fixation location. The latencies of saccades landing within 1o of the previous fixation location were elevated, consistent with oculomotor IOR. However, there was no decrease in the likelihood that the previous location would be fixated relative to distance-matched controls or an a priori baseline. Saccades exhibit an overall forward bias, but this is due to a general bias to move in the same direction and for the same distance as the last saccade (saccadic momentum) rather than to a spatially specific tendency to avoid previously fixated locations. We find no evidence that oculomotor IOR has a significant impact on return probability during scene search.     

返回抑制的空间、视网膜和客体参照系

返回抑制是指当刺激出现在先前注意过的位置(或客体)时,人们的加工效率降低的一种抑制性注意机制。该注意机制对个体有适应性价值,它能够降低注意返回先前注意过的位置(或客体)的概率(PosnerCohen,1984),从而提高视觉采样(或搜索)的效率(Klein,1988)。返回抑制的参照系是返回抑制领域的重要理论问题。先前研究发现返回抑制的参照系可以是视网膜、空间和客体。本文介绍了返回抑制参照系研究的实验范式以及相关的行为、脑损伤及神经影像发现。此外,本文还就未来研究的方向和应该注意的问题进行了探讨。     

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。     

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.     

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.