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.     

Inhibition of return: support for generality of the phenomenon.

Inhibition of return (IOR), first described in 1984, was considered to be a general phenomenon for ensuring that attention would be allocated to successive stimuli in the environment. In the present research, IOR was expressed in forced-choice identification tasks with either reaction time or accuracy as the dependent measure. Thus, the generality of IOR was supported, because response inhibition cannot explain IOR found with accuracy measures. Concepts from the variable and permeable filters metaphor are used to suggest how changes in attention can change expression of IOR by rapid variation in perceptual threshold.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Examining the role of the fixation cue in inhibition of return.

To clarify the role of the fixation cue in inhibition of return (IOR), the present study compared four conditions: fixation cue immediately after the peripheral cue, in the middle of the stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA), immediately before the onset of the target, or no fixation cue. With a 200-ms SOA, less IOR was found when the fixation cue was either absent or occurred immediately after the peripheral cue. No differences between the four conditions were found with 400-ms and 800-ms SOAs. These findings suggest that there is a brief period of time in which attention cannot be withdrawn from the peripherally cued location. Once attention has been withdrawn from the peripherally cued location, IOR can be found at short SOAs.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Examining the effect of practice on inhibition of return in static displays.

In a recent article, Weaver, Lupiá?ez, and Watson (1998) reported that both object-based and location-based inhibition of return effects were reduced with practice. The present study was conducted to (1) replicate the reduction of inhibition of return with practice in single-session experiments with a variety of displays and responses and (2) to examine the notion that the reduction was, at least partly, due to habituation. However, no evidence for practice-related changes in the size of the inhibitory effect were found over a series of different inhibition of return experiments using static displays (using various numbers of target locations, types of keypress responses, and number of trials). Overall, the results suggest that inhibition of return is a robust phenomenon and may not, with static displays, be especially sensitive to practice effects.     

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.     

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.     

The mechanism underlying inhibition of saccadic return

Human observers take longer to re-direct gaze to a previously fixated location. Although there has been some exploration of the characteristics of inhibition of saccadic return (ISR), the exact mechanisms by which ISR operates are currently unknown. In the framework of accumulation models of response times, in which evidence is integrated over time to a response threshold, ISR could reflect a reduction in the rate of accumulation for saccades to return locations or an increase in the effective criterion for response. In two experiments, participants generated sequences of three saccades, in response to a peripheral or a central cue. ISR occurred across these manipulations: saccade latency was consistently increased for movements to the immediately previously fixated location. Latency distributions from individual observers were fit with a Linear Ballistic Accumulator model. ISR was best accounted for as a change in the accumulation rate. We suggest this parameter represents the overall desirability of a particular course of action, the evidence for which may be derived from a variety of sensory and non-sensory sources.