注意定势及时间不确定性对基于空间的返回抑制的影响

在两个实验中使用比例控制范式 ,研究了基于空间位置的注意定势及时间不确定性对检测任务中IOR出现时程的影响。实验 1以 75名本科生为被试 ,将SOA水平作为组间变量 ,从而消除了时间不确定性。结果发现 ,当被试形成“更依赖于提示位置”的注意定势时 ,IOR出现的时程延长。实验 2以 2 2名本科生为被试 ,将SOA作为组内变量 ,从而将时间不确定性引入实验任务。结果表明 ,存在时间不确定性时 ,IOR出现的时程恢复到正常水平。两个实验的结果表明 ,IOR的时程受到内源和外源性注意之间交互作用的影响 ,而注意定势和时间不确定性是决定IOR何时出现及持续时间的两个十分关键的因素。     

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。     

空间工作记忆负载对中央注视线索返回抑制的影响

通过两个实验,探讨空间工作记忆负载对中央注视线索引发返回抑制（inhibition of return,IOR）的影响。实验一通过再认面孔的相似度来控制与中央注视线索相关的空间工作记忆任务负载,结果发现,高任务负载条件下出现IOR,低任务负载条件下中央注视线索促进搜索;实验二在实验一高任务负载的基础上加入与注视线索无关的空间工作记忆任务,结果发现,仅在与注视线索无关的空间工作记忆负载低的条件下出现IOR。结果表明,中央注视线索引发的IOR受到空间工作记忆资源的限制,中央注视线索只有在获得足够的资源时才能引发IOR。注视线索获得空间工作记忆资源多少决定中央注视线索能否引发IOR。     

工作记忆对动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制的影响

采用双任务干扰范式探讨了工作记忆对动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制的影响。三个实验分别考察了在言语、空间和视觉工作记忆负载条件下基于客体的返回抑制效应,结果发现只有在空间工作记忆负载条件下,动态范式中的返回抑制才受到损害。这表明空间工作记忆不但在静态范式中的IOR信息的维持和更新中起着重要的作用,在动态范式中的IOR信息的维持和更新中同样起着重要的作用。同时也为动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制的空间抑制动态更新说提供了新的证据     

一般性注意资源限制对返回抑制的影响

通过探讨视空间和语义通道内的注意资源的限制对IOR的影响的4个实验,来验证“IOR的低级成分不受注意资源限制的影响和IOR的高级成分受注意资源限制的影响”的假设。实验1A和1B的结果表明,在基于空间位置的简单检测任务中,IOR的低级成分既不随语义通道内注意资源的减少而消减,也不随空间通道内注意资源的减少而消减。实验2A和2B结果表明,在基于客体特性的辨别任务中,IOR的高级成分既随语义通道内注意资源的减少而消减,又随空间通道内注意资源的减少而消减。因此,辨别任务中的IOR受一般性注意资源的限制。同时,实验结果还表明,IOR的高级成分对空间通道内的注意资源的需求要高于对语义通道内注意资源的需求     

双语、单语者的抑制控制差异——来自IOR的证据

采用3×2被试内设计,以返回抑制(Inhibition of return,简称IOR)范式为基础,考察双语者与单语者的抑制控制差异。结果发现:(1)短SOA时,两组被试均出现了显著的IOR,长SOA时IOR现象消失,说明两组被试在IOR出现的时程上并无差异。(2)双语者的IOR效应量明显大于单语者,研究结果支持了双语学习对抑制控制能力发展起到促进作用的观点,并且这一促进作用在成人被试中仍然存在。     

暂时建立的自我参照线索对返回抑制的影响

采用经典线索-靶子范式,考察了暂时建立的自我参照线索对返回抑制（inhibition of return, IOR）效应量的调节作用。结果发现,在暂时建立的朋友参照线索或无意义线索条件下均产生了IOR效应,但是在暂时建立的自我参照线索条件下IOR效应没有出现,这是因为相比暂时建立的朋友参照线索或无意义线索,被试对呈现在暂时建立的自我参照线索后的靶刺激的反应更快。结果表明,自我相关信息能够削弱IOR的效应量,并为IOR是一种进化适应性的视觉搜索促进机制提供了新的证据。     

安全标志词语的风险等级对注意效应的调节作用

安全标志是一种传递潜在风险的方式,在安全管理中有重要地位。安全标志词语在安全标志中应用广泛。本文从新的视角研究安全标志词语的有效性,应用心理学中的线索-靶范式研究安全标志词语的风险等级对目标的注意效应的影响。实验结果发现,词语的风险等级显著调节注意返回抑制（inhibition of return, IOR）效应, 高风险词语相对于中、低风险词语能够减弱IOR效应;但词语的风险等级对IOR的调节作用受到靶子位置的影响,其中,靶子出现在左侧时调节作用显著,而靶子出现在右侧时调节作用不显著,这是由于风险引发的负性情绪刺激处理的偏侧优势产生的。本文为安全标志有效性相关研究提供了新的研究视角和心理学实验证据。     

返回抑制过程中情绪面孔加工优先：ERPs研究

返回抑制(IOR)是指注意过程中个体对已搜索过的位置进行抑制, 从而在随后该位置上出现目标时发生注意重新定向或反应变慢的过程。本研究使用ERPs技术, 采用线索-靶子范式, 考察了情绪目标辨别任务中IOR的发生过程及二者的神经机制。结果发现, 与无效线索相比, 有效线索下的P1波幅更小, N1波幅更大, 正性、负性面孔N170的波幅比中性面孔大。表明当要求被试做情绪辨别任务时, IOR与对情绪信息的反应之间发生了分离, 表现出情绪加工的优先。这说明IOR和情绪偏向是发生在两种不同神经通路上的适应机制, 也为进一步探究注意与情绪的关系问题提供了来自神经电生理学的证据。     

一种自上而下加工的注意选择新机制:视觉标记

视觉标记是国外新近提出的有关注意选择机制的一种假设。该假设认为,在任务目标预先设定的条件下视觉系统是通过抑制旧刺激所处的位置来实现对新刺激的优先选择。本文主要介绍了视觉标记研究的经典实验范式、视觉标记理论的行为实验依据和脑成像实验依据,还概述了三种质疑视觉标记理论的观点。最后对视觉标记的未来研究做了展望。     

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.     

Spatiotemporal distribution of facilitation and inhibition of return arising from the reflexive orienting of covert attention

Currently, there is debate regarding both the spatial and temporal relationship between facilitation and inhibition of return (IOR) components of attention, as observed on the covert orienting of visual attention task (COVAT). These issues were addressed in a series of experiments where the spatial and temporal relationships between cue and target were manipulated. Facilitation occurred only when the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) was short and there was temporal overlap between cue and target. IOR occurred only when SOA was long and there was no temporal overlap between cue and target. Facilitation encompassed the cued location and all locations between the cue and fixation, whereas IOR arose for the entire cued hemifield. These findings suggest that the facilitation and IOR found on COVATs that use noninformative peripheral cues are separable and stimulus-driven processes.     

Does IOR occur in discrimination tasks? Yes, it does, but later

When a stimulus appears in a previously cued location several hundred milliseconds after the cue, the time required to detect that stimulus is greater than when it appears in an uncued location. This increase in detection time is known as inhibition of return (IOR). It has been suggested that IOR reflects the action of a general attentional mechanism that prevents attention from returning to previously explored loci. At the same time, the robustness of IOR has been recently disputed, given several failures to obtain the effect in tasks requiring discrimination rather than detection. In a series of eight experiments, we evaluated the differences between detection and discrimination tasks with regard to IOR. We found that IOR was consistently obtained with both tasks, although the temporal parameters required to observe IOR were different in detection and discrimination tasks. In our detection task, the effect appeared after a 400-msec delay between cue and target, and was still present after 1,300 msec. In our discrimination task, the effect appeared later and disappeared sooner. The implications of these data for theoretical accounts of IOR are discussed.     

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.     

Inhibitory interaction: the effects of multiple non-predictive visual cues

When the interval between a non-predictive cue and a target appearing at the same spatial location is longer than about 200 ms, target performance is typically poorer than when the cue and target appear at different locations. Recent studies have shown that this effect, known as inhibition of return (IOR), can occur at multiple cued locations, and is enhanced when multiple cues are presented at the same spatial location. However, little is known about how the magnitude of IOR at one spatial location is influenced by a subsequent or preceding cue presented at a different spatial location. We investigated this issue by presenting single or multiple cues at varying inter-cue intervals prior to target onset. Results suggest that the magnitude of IOR at a given location is influenced by the presentation of a preceding cue, but that once IOR occurs, it is unaffected by the presentation of a subsequent cue.     

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.     

Searching for inhibition of return in the rat using the covert orienting of attention task

Inhibition of return (IOR) is an important psychological construct describing inhibited responses to previously attended locations. In humans, it is investigated using Posner’s cueing paradigm. This paradigm requires central visual fixation and detection of cued stimuli to the left or right of the fixation point. Stimuli can be validly or invalidly cued, appearing in the same or opposite location to the cue. Although a rat version of the spatial cueing paradigm (the covert orienting of attention task) does exist, IOR has so far not been demonstrated. We therefore investigated whether IOR could be robustly demonstrated in adult male rats using the covert orienting of attention task. This task is conducted in holed wall operant chambers with the central three holes mimicking the set-up for Posner cueing. Across four samples of rats (overall n = 84), we manipulated the following task parameters: stimulus onset asynchronies (Experiments 1–3), cue brightness (Experiment 1b) and the presence of a central reorienting event (Experiment 4). In Experiment 1, we also investigated strain differences by comparing Lister Hooded rats to Sprague–Dawley rats. Although Lister Hooded rats briefly showed evidence of IOR (Experiment 1a, and see Online Resource 1 data), we were unable to replicate this finding in our other experiments using different samples of this strain. Taken together, our findings suggest that IOR cannot be robustly demonstrated in the rat using the covert orienting of attention task conducted in holed wall operant chambers.     

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.     

Inhibition of return and the attentional set for integrating versus differentiating information.

Cuing a location with an uninformative cue leads to a facilitatory effect at that location shortly afterward and later (about 300 ms) to a negative effect called inhibition of return (IOR). Until recently, it was argued that IOR occurs in detection and localization tasks, but not in discrimination tasks. However, the authors of several recent studies have demonstrated IOR effects in discrimination tasks, although at a later cue-to-target stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). In this study, the authors examined why IOR occurs at a later SOA in discrimination tasks. In Experiments 1 and 2, different time courses of exogenous cuing effects in detection and discrimination tasks were established. In Experiment 3, the authors examined the role of an attentional set on the time course of exogenous cuing effects by manipulating the proportion of trials in which a distractor is presented in the location opposite the target. A new framework for understanding exogenous cuing effects and their dependence on endogenous attention is proposed.