Inhibition of return for target discriminations: the effect of repeating discriminated and irrelevant stimulus dimensions

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slowed reaction times when a target repeats in the same location as a preceding stimulus. In four experiments, the participants were presented with two successive stimuli, S1 and S2. In Experiments 1 and 2, the participants made a speeded discrimination of the identity or orientation of both S1 and S2 (Experiment 1) or of S2 only (Experiment 2). An IOR effect occurred for the repetition of stimulus location, but a facilitatory effect occurred if the stimulus remained unchanged or if an overt response was repeated. In Experiments 3 and 4, the participants localized S1 and S2 (Experiment 3) or S2 only (Experiment 4) to the left or right of center. In this case, repeating the same stimulus had no effect: IOR occurred any time stimulus location repeated. These results demonstrate that the expression of IOR is modulated by the repetition of a target object, but only when the task requires the discrimination of that object; when no discrimination is required, IOR is unaffected.     

Analysing the relationship between target-to-target and distractor-to-target repetitions: evidence for a common mechanism

In the present study an assumption of retrieval theories of negative priming was tested. In particular, retrieval theories assume that the same underlying process causes benefits in target-to-target repetition trials and cost effects in distractor-to-target repetition trials in selection tasks in which targets are accompanied by distractor stimuli. More specifically, retrieval theories predict a negative correlation: The higher the benefit in target-to-target repetition trials is, the higher the cost effect in distractor-to-target repetition trials should be. In fact, in a study with considerable power (N = 110) and a design that allowed a confound-free detection of correlations, I observed a significant negative correlation between benefit and cost effects. This result is interpreted as evidence for a common retrieval mechanism.     

返回抑制时程的三因素理论及其发展

综述了返回抑制(Inhibition of return,IOR)出现时程机制的三因素理论内容,支持该理论的实验证据,以及对理论的质疑和发展。该理论认为空间定向收益、出现检测缺失和空间选择收益三个因素共同决定了IOR出现的时程及机制。研究者通过操控任务加工水平或将实验范式相结合的方式对三因素理论提出了质疑和发展。许多关键问题如三个因素存在的认知神经科学证据、出现检测缺失和空间选择收益发挥作用的方式等是未来研究的重点和方向。     

Analysing the relationship between target-to-target and distractor-to-target repetitions: Evidence for a common mechanism

In the present study an assumption of retrieval theories of negative priming was tested. In particular, retrieval theories assume that the same underlying process causes benefits in target-to-target repetition trials and cost effects in distractor-to-target repetition trials in selection tasks in which targets are accompanied by distractor stimuli. More specifically, retrieval theories predict a negative correlation: The higher the benefit in target-to-target repetition trials is, the higher the cost effect in distractor-to-target repetition trials should be. In fact, in a study with considerable power (N = 110) and a design that allowed a confound-free detection of correlations, I observed a significant negative correlation between benefit and cost effects. This result is interpreted as evidence for a common retrieval mechanism.     

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.     

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.     

Predictive remapping gives rise to environmental inhibition of return

Neurons in various brain regions predictively respond to stimuli that will be brought to their receptive fields by an impending eye movement. This neural mechanism, known as predictive remapping, has been suggested to underlie spatial constancy. Inhibition of return (IOR) is a bias against recently attended locations. The present study examined whether predictive remapping is a mechanism underlying IOR effects observed in environmental coordinates. The participant made saccades to a peripheral location after an IOR effect had been elicited by an onset cue and discriminated a target presented around the time of saccade onset. Immediately before the required saccade, IOR emerged at the retinal locus that would be brought to the cued location. A second task in which the participant maintained fixation during the entire trial ruled out the possibility that this IOR effect was simply the spillover of IOR from the cued location. These findings, for the first time, provide direct behavioral evidence that predictive remapping is a mechanism underlying environmental IOR.     

Inhibitory tagging in inhibition of return: Evidence from flanker interference with multiple distractor features

Fuentes, Vivas, and Humphreys (1999) proposed a distinction betweeninhibition of return (IOR) and inhibitory processing taking place at a location subject to IOR. This latter mechanism,inhibitory tagging (IT), would act at a late level of processing related to response selection. In the present study, we examined whether IT was applied only to the target-relevant properties of the stimuli (e.g., to its color) or whether it was applied to other features of the stimulus as well (e.g., to its shape). Both when the task was to respond to the target’s color (Experiment 1) as well as when it was to respond to the target’s shape (Experiment 2), there was evidence of IT (reversal of the typical flanker effect at the cued location, relative to the uncued location) only to task-relevant features of the target. These findings suggest that IT is a central process of control constrained by task demands and current goals.     

Location and shape in inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) is characterized by a delay in responding to a target preceded by an irrelevant stimulus (cue) at the same location, or, in other words, by a response delay when the same location is stimulated twice. It is not clear, however, if the same phenomenon is present when there is a repetition of a simple nonspatial attribute of the stimulus. The present study examines the repetition of shape. Six experiments were conducted. In Experiments 1, 2, 3, and 6 the stimuli were geometrical shapes, whereas in Experiments 4 and 5 letters were used. In Experiment 1 all the stimuli were presented at fixation, whereas in Experiments 2 to 6 they were presented in the periphery. In Experiments 2 and 3, location and shape of the cue and the target were independently manipulated in order to test independently inhibitory effects (IOR?) attributable to location repetition and shape repetition. Results showed an inhibitory effect for location and a much smaller inhibitory effect for shape. The latter was restricted to the cued location. Experiments 4 and 5 tested the possibility that inhibition caused by shape repetition is due to repetition blindness. Experiment 6 contrasted the presence or absence of a central neutral attractor in the delay interval between presentation of the cue and the target. Taken together the results seem to favor IOR as the basis for the inhibition caused by shape repetition.     

The Effects of Cueing Target Location and Response Mode on Interference and Negative Priming Using a Visual Selection Paradigm

Two experiments are reported that examine the effects of cueing the location of a target in the prime display on interference and subsequent negative priming. The prime and probe displays comprised two words, a target and a distractor. In the prime display, the two words were either the same (response compatible) or different (response incompatible). The target in the probe display was unrelated to the prime distractor (control), the same word as the distractor (ignored repetition), or semantically related to the distractor (ignored semantic repetition). In Experiment 1, cueing the location of the prime target significantly reduced the interference effect but not the subsequent identity negative priming (NP) effect. In contrast, not cueing the prime target resulted in the elimination of the identity NP. There was no evidence of semantic NP in this experiment. In Experiment 2, where a categorization response was required, significant interference was obtained in the prime display that was not influenced by cueing the location of the target. Although there was significant semantic NP, identity NP failed to reach significance. The two experiments were analysed together, and findings are discussed in relation to current models of negative priming.     

Inhibition of return and repetition priming effects in localization and discrimination tasks.

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slower responding to a stimulus that is presented at the same, rather than a different location as a preceding, spatially nonpredictive, stimulus. Repetition priming refers to speeded responding to a stimulus that duplicates the visual characteristics of a stimulus that precedes it. IOR and repetition priming effects interact in nonspatial discrimination tasks but not in localization tasks; three experiments examined whether this is due to processing differences or due to response differences between tasks. Two stimuli, S1 and S2, occurred on each trial. In Experiment 1, S1 and S2 were both peripheral arrows; in Experiment 2, S1 was a central arrow and S2 was a peripheral nondirectional rectangle; in Experiment 3, S1 was a peripheral nondirectional rectangle and S2 was a peripheral arrow. S1 never required a response; S2 required a localization or a discrimination response. Despite evidence that form information was likely extracted from the arrow stimuli, the localization task revealed no repetition priming: IOR occurred regardless of shared visual identity of the S1 and S2 arrows. The discrimination task revealed IOR only when the visual identity changed from S1 to S2; otherwise, facilitation occurred. These results suggest that IOR is masked by repetition priming only when the response depends on the explicit processing of form information; repetition priming does not occur when such information is extracted automatically but is task (and response) irrelevant.     

重复线索化和靶子注意定向对返回抑制的影响

在返回抑制范式下 ,利用线索—靶子模式进行了两个实验 ,以大学生为被试 ,以重复线索化次数来操纵线索化阶段的注意 ,以靶子的注意定向来操纵靶子加工阶段的注意 ,探讨注意对返回抑制的影响。实验一采用连续线索化方式 ,发现当靶子为自主性注意定向时 ,线索化次数对返回抑制有显著影响 ,线索化 3次时返回抑制值大于线索化 1次和 2次 ;当靶子为反射性注意定向时 ,线索化次数对返回抑制无影响。实验二采用交叉线索化方式 ,发现线索化次数对返回抑制的影响正好与实验一相反。两个实验一致表明 ,无论是线索化阶段的注意 ,还是靶子加工阶段的注意 ,均对返回抑制有显著影响 ;并且 ,在对返回抑制的影响上 ,二者存在显著交互作用。从而支持注意影响返回抑制的观点。该结果对返回抑制的机制研究有一定意义。     

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.     

Eliminating inhibition of return by changing salient nonspatial attributes in a complex environment

Inhibition of return (IOR) occurs when a target is preceded by an irrelevant stimulus (cue) at the same location: Target detection is slowed, relative to uncued locations. In the present study, we used relatively complex displays to examine the effect of repetition of nonspatial attributes. For both color and shape, attribute repetition produced a robust inhibitory effect that followed a time course similar to that for location-based IOR. However, the effect only occurred when the target shared both the feature (i.e., color or shape) and location with the cue; this constraint implicates a primary role for location. The data are consistent with the idea that the system integrates consecutive stimuli into a single object file when attributes repeat, hindering detection of the second stimulus. The results are also consistent with an interpretation of IOR as a form of habituation, with greater habituation occurring with increasing featural overlap of a repeated stimulus. Critically, both of these interpretations bring the IOR effect within more general approaches to attention and perception, rather than requiring a specialized process with a limited function. In this view, there is no process specifically designed to inhibit return, suggesting that IOR may be the wrong framing of inhibitory repetition effects. Instead, we suggest that repetition of stimulus properties can interfere with the ability to focus attention on the aspects of a complex display that are needed to detect the occurrence of the target stimulus; this is a failure of activation, not an inhibition of processing.     

任务需求对基于位置的返回抑制和基于颜色的重复劣势效应的影响

在 3个实验中探讨了任务需求对基于位置的返回抑制和基于颜色的重复劣势效应的影响。实验 1选取2 3名本科生被试 ,在把所有刺激都呈现在中央视觉上的颜色辨别任务中 ,发现颜色重复条件下的反应时明显长于非重复条件下的反应时 ,出现了显著的基于颜色的重复劣势效应 ,而且它的量显著大于简单检测任务中基于颜色的重复劣势效应量。实验 2和 3在实验 1的基础上加入空间不确定性 ,分别选取 2 2名和 2 3名本科生被试 ,并要求他们分别完成颜色辨别任务和简单检测任务。结果发现 ,在颜色辨别任务中 ,既获得了基于空间的返回抑制 ,又获得了基于颜色的重复劣势效应 ,而且二者之间没有交互作用 ,即它们各自独立地发挥作用 ;而在简单检测任务中 ,只获得了基于空间的返回抑制。 3个实验的结果表明 ,在一种实验情境下出现基于何种刺激特性的重复劣势效应 ,以及其量的大小完全取决于实验中的任务需求。在文章最后还将本研究结果与一种选择性注意领域内普遍抑制模型相结合 ,进行了深入讨论     

不同位置的情绪面孔加工对返回抑制的影响

分别将情绪面孔图片作为线索（实验一）或靶子（实验二）呈现,利用线索-靶子范式考察了定位任务中情绪面孔加工对返回抑制的影响。结果发现：以不同情绪面孔作为线索时,返回抑制稳定出现,表现出与情绪加工的分离;而当情绪面孔作为靶子时,与中性面孔相比,情绪面孔引发的返回抑制量显著较小。该研究表明,在定位任务中,返回抑制不受线索生物性的影响,但是会受到靶子性质的影响,反映出机体在不同条件下对空间注意和情绪加工的灵活性。     

Facilitation versus inhibition in non-spatial attribute discrimination tasks

Inhibition of Return is a delay in initiating attentional shifts to previously inspected locations. It has been explained as a mechanism to facilitate visual search of a scene by inhibiting the allocation of attention to locations that have already been examined. We (Hu, Samuel, &; Chan, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2010) recently demonstrated that similar processing costs can appear when a non-spatial attribute (color or shape) repeats—detection of a target stimulus was slower if the target shared color or shape with a recently presented cue. In the current study, we test whether such inhibitory effects occur for non-spatial attribute repetition when observers must make a discrimination judgment about targets. We found two independent effects: First, there was a standard location-based IOR effect—target discrimination was slower when the target appeared in the same location as a preceding cue. Second, reaction times were faster if the target's color or shape matched the cue's color or shape; this facilitation effect contrasts with both the location-based inhibition that was present in the current experiments, and with the inhibitory effect of feature repetition in our previous detection task study. The data are best accounted for by a three-factor model recently suggested by Lupiáñez (Attention and time, 2010).     

Orienting of attention, pupil size, and the norepinephrine system

This research examined a novel suggestion regarding the involvement of the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine (LC-NE) system in orienting reflexive (exogenous) attention. A common procedure for studying exogenous orienting of attention is Posner's cuing task. Importantly, one can manipulate the required level of target processing by changing task requirements, which, in turn, can elicit a different time course of inhibition of return (IOR). An easy task (responding to target location) produces earlier onset IOR, whereas a demanding task (responding to target identity) produces later onset IOR. Aston-Jones and Cohen (Annual Review of Neuroscience, 28, 403-450, 2005) presented a theory suggesting two different modes of LC activity: tonic and phasic. Accordingly, we suggest that in the more demanding task, the LC-NE system is activated in phasic mode, and in the easier task, it is activated in tonic mode. This, in turn, influences the appearance of IOR. We examined this suggestion by measuring participants' pupil size, which has been demonstrated to correlate with the LC-NE system, while they performed cuing tasks. We found a response-locked phasic dilation of the pupil in the discrimination task, as compared with the localization task, which may reflect different firing modes of the LC-NE system during the two tasks. We also demonstrated a correlation between pupil size at the time of cue presentation and magnitude of IOR.     

Revisiting the role of probe distractors in negative priming: Location negative priming is observed when probe distractors are consistently absent

Negative priming (NP) refers to the delayed response to a probe target that was previously a prime distractor. One peculiar problem in NP literature is the observation that the manifestation of identity NP is contingent on the presence and type of probe distractors. When the probe distractors were completely removed, positive priming, rather than NP, was usually observed. This study investigated whether location NP was affected by the same manipulations. The proportion of ignored repetition trials, attended repetition trials, and control trials was manipulated across Experiments 1–3. These three experiments showed reliable location NP effect when the probe distractor was consistently absent. Experiment 4 showed that the presence of probe distractors did not increase the magnitude of the location NP effect. Experiment 5 showed that the location NP effect observed was not contingent on perceptual mismatching. These findings suggest that the presence of probe distractors is not a necessary component for the manifestation of location NP. Theoretical implications were discussed.     

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.