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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Importance of precue location in directing attention

In location-precuing experiments, accuracy in discrimination of T-like characters improves with increasing time between the precue and the target. In this experiment, two central and two peripheral cue locations were examined using 13 different cue-target intervals from 0 to 234 msec. Accuracy was the same when trials were cued from the two peripheral locations (two thirds distance between fixation and target or distal to the target location). Centrally cued trials (cues at fixation or next to fixation) resulted in slower onset of attentional effects than peripherally cued trials, but there was greater accuracy at long cue-target intervals for central than for peripheral cues. Data are compared to previously published research.     

Focal spatial attention can eliminate inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) is an orienting phenomenon characterized by slower responses to spatially cued than to uncued targets. In Experiment 1, a physically small digit that required identification was presented immediately following a peripheral cue. The digit could appear in the cued peripheral box or in the central box, thus guaranteeing a saccadic response to the cue in one condition and maintenance of fixation in the other. An IOR effect was observed when a saccadic response to the cue was required, but IOR was not generated by the peripheral cue when fixation was maintained in order to process the central digit. In Experiment 2, IOR effects were observed when participants were instructed to ignore the digits, whether those digits were presented in the periphery or at fixation. These findings suggest that behaviorally manifested, cue-induced IOR effects can be eliminated by focal spatial attentional control settings.     

Effects of relevant and irrelevant color singletons on inhibition of return and attentional capture

We tested whether color singletons lead to saccadic and manual inhibition of return (IOR; i.e., slower responses at cued locations) and whether IOR depended on the relevance of the color singletons. The target display was preceded by a nonpredictive cue display. In three experiments, half of the cues were response-relevant, because participants had to perform a discrimination task at the cued location. With the exception of Experiment 2, none of the cue colors matched the target color. We observed saccadic IOR after color singletons, which was greater for slow than for fast responses. Furthermore, when the relevant cue color matched the target color, we observed attentional capture (i.e., faster responses at cued locations) with rapid responses, but IOR with slower responses, which provides evidence for attentional deallocation. When the cue display was completely response-irrelevant in two additional experiments, we did not find evidence for IOR. Instead, we found attentional capture when the cue color matched the target color. Also, attentional capture was greater for rapid responses and with short cue–target intervals. Thus, IOR emerges when cues are relevant and do not match the target color, whereas attentional capture emerges with relevant and irrelevant cues that match the target color.     

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.     

A biased-competition approach to spatial cueing: Combining empirical studies and computational modelling

We examined the effects of cue luminance on visual orienting. Experiment 1 established that the commonly-found early facilitation and late inhibition of return (IOR) effects were independent of cue luminance with single cues in terms of their amplitude, although IOR was delayed in the low compared to the high luminance cue condition. In contrast, Experiment 2 revealed that, with dual cues of mixed luminance, both facilitation and IOR effects were found only with bright cues. When cues had equal luminance, however, there were cueing effects for two cued locations but only when the cues were bright. The data were accommodated in a neural network model of biased competition in which cueing effects emerge at more than one location provided input activation is sufficient to overcome competitive damping of the selection system.     

Examining inhibition of return with multiple sequential cues in younger and older adults

Studies with younger adults have shown that when multiple peripheral cues are presented sequentially, inhibition of return (IOR) occurs at several locations with the greatest IOR at the most recently cued location and the least at the earliest cued location. The inhibitory ability needed to tag multiple locations requires visuospatial working memory, and it is thought that this type of memory may be vulnerable to the effects of aging. The present experiments examined whether older adults would show less IOR at multiple cued locations than younger adults when placeholders were present (Experiment 1) and absent (Experiment 2). Of interest, in both experiments older adults showed an almost identical pattern of IOR, in both magnitude and number of inhibited locations, to that of younger adults. This finding, in conjunction with research on memory-guided saccades, suggests that there may be a form of visuospatial working memory, specific to oculomotor and visual attention processes, that is relatively resistant to the effects of aging.     

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.     

Movement versus focusing of visual attention

In two experiments, we investigated the idea that attention moves through visual space in an analog fashion. The spatial distribution of attention was determined by presenting a spatially informative cue and comparing reaction times to targets at cued and uncued locations as a function of the interval from cue onset to target onset (SOA). Facilitation and inhibition were measured by reference to a neutral condition in which the cue provided no spatial information. In the first experiment, we used a central cue (an arrow), and in the second experiment, we used a peripheral cue (a 50-msec flash). With central cue, the facilitatory effects of the cuing were initially equal for all locations on the indicated side of the display, and then decreased for all locations except the one that had been specifically cued. These results are interpreted as being more consistent with "focusing" of an initially broad "beam" of attention than with "movement" of a narrow beam from fixation to the cued location. With peripheral cues, strong facilitation specific to the cued location was manifest as early as 50 msec after cue onset, but this effect decreased with increasing SOA. Inhibition for uncued locations increased with increasing SOA at a rate that generally reflected their distance from the cued location. Taken together, these results reveal important differences between peripheral and central cues in the generation of attentional selectivity, not just in the time-course of events, but also in the nature of the processes involved.     

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.     

An event-related brain potential study of inhibition of return

Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded during two spatial-cuing experiments using nonpredictive cues. Our primary goal was to determine the electrophysiological consequences of inhibition of return (IOR). At long (> 500 msec) cue-target intervals, subjects responded more slowly to targets that appeared at or near the cued location, relative to targets that appeared on the opposite side of fixation from the cue. This behavioral IOR effect was associated with cue-validity effects on several components of the target-elicited ERP waveforms. The earliest such effect was a smaller occipital P1 on valid-cue trials, which we interpret as a P1 reduction. The P2 component was also smaller on valid-cue trials, indicating that nonpredictive spatial cues influence multiple stages of information processing at long cue-target intervals. Both of these effects were observed when sensory interactions between cue and target were likely to be negligible, indicating that they were not caused by sensory refractoriness. A different effect of cue validity, the posterior negative difference, was found when sensory interactions were likely to be greatest, indicating that it could arise from sensory refractoriness.     

Examining inhibition of return with onset and offset cues in the multiple-cuing paradigm

Three experiments examined inhibition of return (IOR) with onset and offset cues in a multiple-cuing paradigm. In the first two experiments, five sequential cues either appeared and remained present (onset cues) or disappeared and remained absent (offset cues). In the third experiment, the cues were either onset cues or on-off cues (appeared and then disappeared quickly after). With placeholders present, onset and offset cues produced similar declines in IOR from the most recently cued location (Experiment 1). In contrast, onset cues produced overall more IOR than on-off cues (Experiment 3). With placeholders absent (Experiment 2), no IOR was found for either onset or offset cues. The results suggest that even in a complex multiple-cuing paradigm, onsets and offsets are treated similarly by the attentional system. Furthermore, it appears that onset cues are easier to encode as previously searched than on-off cues, suggesting a role of working memory in IOR. Finally, when multiple locations are cued sequentially by onsets and offsets they must be marked by placeholders for inhibition to occur.     

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.     

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.     

试次历史对跨通道非空间返回抑制的影响

个体对刺激的反应不仅受刺激本身的影响, 还会受到先前刺激的影响, 表现为对当前试次中刺激的反应会受到前一试次的影响, 即试次历史。本研究采用“线索-中性线索-靶子”范式探讨前一试次有效性对跨通道的非空间返回抑制的影响。实验1通过连续两个试次间的线索有效性考察在跨通道非空间返回抑制中试次历史的影响。为了在跨通道非空间返回抑制中减小试次历史的影响, 实验2通过延长试次间时间间隔考察跨通道非空间返回抑制中试次历史的作用是否减小。结果发现, 前一试次线索无效时, 当前试次中的返回抑制效应量显著小于前一试次有效时, 这种影响会根据试次中线索和靶子通道的不同而不同。并且当延长试次间的时间间隔可以有效地减少前一试次对当前试次的影响。因此本研究表明, 试次历史能够对跨通道非空间返回抑制产生影响, 并且这种影响可以通过增大试次间时间间隔来减小。     

中央线索化对动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制的影响

采用3×2×3的混合实验设计,考察了三种线索-靶子呈现时间间隔条件下,中央线索化对动态范式中“基于客体的返回抑制”的影响。结果表明,在外周方框旋转同时或旋转停止后中央线索化时,出现了“基于客体的返回抑制”效应,但在外周方框旋转之前中央线索化时,“基于客体的返回抑制”效应却消失了。这说明中央线索化对动态范式中的“基于客体的返回抑制”有着重要的影响,也为动态范式中“基于客体的返回抑制”的空间位置抑制动态更新说提供了新的证据。