Structure-based modulation of inhibition of return is triggered by object-internal but not occluding shape features

When attention is oriented to an object it is inhibited from returning to the same object following a short delay. This inhibition-of-return (IOR) effect is modulated by an edge discontinuity presented between cue and target—an effect referred to as structure-based modulation of IOR. Here we examined two alternative accounts for the structure-based modulation effect. On one account the modulation is caused by the presence of any intervening feature between cue and target. On another account the modulation is caused by edge-bounded (i.e., closed) regions of space, on which space-based selection mechanisms operate. We presented cues and targets on unsegmented and internally or externally segmented rectangles to examine the two alternative accounts for the effect. Contrary to the predictions of the two alternative accounts, structure-based modulation of IOR was found with the internally but not with the externally segmented displays. This supports our hypothesis that object-based IOR arises from perceptually complete and internally structured object representations.     

Inhibition of return at multiple locations in visual search: When you see it and when you don't

Using a novel sequential task, Danziger, Kingstone, and Snyder (1998) provided conclusive evidence that inhibition of return (IOR) can co-occur at multiple non-contiguous locations. They argued that their findings depended crucially on the allocation of attention to cued locations. Specifically, they hypothesized that because subjects could not predict whether an onset event was a target or a non-target, all onset events had to be attended. As a result, non-targets were tagged with inhibition. The present study tested this hypothesis by manipulating whether target onset was predictable or not. In support of Danziger et al., three experiments revealed that multiple IOR was only observed when attention had to be directed to the cued locations. Interestingly, when attention did not need to be allocated to the cued locations, and multiple IOR was abolished, an IOR effect was still observed at the most recently cued location. Two possible accounts for this single IOR effect were presented for future investigation. One account attributes the effect to motor-based inhibition as hypothesized by Klein and Taylor (1994). The alternative account attributes the effect to weak attentional capture by a peripheral cue. Together the data support the view that multiple IOR is an attentional phenomenon and, as hypothesized by Tipper, Weaver, and Watson (1996), its presence or absence is largely under the control of the observer.     

Inhibition of object identity in inhibition of return: Implications for encoding and retrieving inhibitory processes

Inhibition of return (IOR) effects, in which participants detect a target in a cued box more slowly than one in an uncued box, suggest that behavior is aided by inhibition of recently attended irrelevant locations. To investigate the controversial question of whether inhibition can be applied to object identity in these tasks, in the present research we presented faces upright or inverted during cue and/or target sequences. IOR was greater when both cue and target faces were upright than when cue and/or target faces were inverted. Because the only difference between the conditions was the ease of facial recognition, this result indicates that inhibition was applied to object identity. Interestingly, inhibition of object identity affected IOR both whenencoding a cue face andretrieving information about a target face. Accordingly, we propose that episodic retrieval of inhibition associated with object identity may mediate behavior in cuing tasks.     

Inhibition of return: sensitivity and criterion as a function of response time

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to a mechanism that results in a performance disadvantage typically observed when targets are presented at a location once occupied by a cue. Although the time course of the phenomenon--from the cue to the target--has been well studied, the time course of the effect--from target to response--is unknown. In 2 experiments, the effect of IOR upon sensitivity and response criterion under different levels of speed stress was examined. In go/no-go and choice reaction time tasks, IOR had at least 2 distinct effects on information processing. Early in target processing, before sufficient target information has accrued, there is a bias against responding to cued targets. Later, as target information is allowed to accrue, IOR reduces sensitivity to the target's nonspatial feature. Three accounts relating to the early bias effect of IOR and the late effect of IOR on sensitivity are offered.     

Modulation of inhibition of return by type and number of dynamic changes of the cue

Inhibition of return (IOR) is a response delay when the target is preceded by an irrelevant stimulus (cue) at the same location. In a previous study, we investigated the separate and joint effects on IOR of cue onset and offset. IOR was much greater when cue onset was followed by cue offset (on-off cue) than when the cue was a single event (on or off cues). The aim of the present study was to test whether the greater IOR with an on-off cue is due to the presence of two cue events. Three experiments were conducted. In Experiment 1 we replicated, with a different delay between cue onset and offset, the finding that IOR is greater with an on-off cue than with a single cue event. In Experiments 2 and 3, we used cues formed by two events. In Experiment 2, an on-off cue was compared with an off-on cue, whereas in Experiment 3 an on-on cue was compared with an off-off cue. Results showed that the magnitude of IOR did not simply depend on the number of cue events occurring before the target. IOR was greater with two different events than with two identical events and greater when was preceded by an off-event than an on-event. Therefore, IOR was greatest with an on-off cue, which likely also benefited from a gap effect. Possible mechanisms underlying IOR were discussed. Received: 31 March 1999 / Accepted: 23 July 1999     

The role of affordances in inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) is a response delay that occurs when the target is preceded by an irrelevant stimulus (cue) at the same location. IOR can be object based, as well as location based. The aim of the present study was to investigate the role of the pragmatic features of a visually presented object in causing IOR. Two experiments were carried out using different objects as stimuli, for which the graspable part (affordance) was clearly defined. The presentation of a whole object, with the part commonly used to grasp it located below, served as a cue. The presentation of either the graspable or the ungraspable part of the cued or uncued object served as the target Results showed that responses were slower when the graspable part was shown in the cued location than when the ungraspable part was shown in the same location. The effect was apparently linked to the kind of action necessary to grasp an object.     

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。     

动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制 ——是客体抑制还是空间抑制的动态更新？

对动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制进行了考察。实验1在双侧客体改变和不改变条件下考察了返回抑制效应,结果表明,在双侧客体改变条件下返回抑制仍然存在。实验2采用单侧客体变化技术对动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制进行了测量,结果发现,在有效线索化条件下,单侧客体改变和不改变条件下对靶子的反应时没有显著差异（p > 0.90）。这些结果表明动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制的机制是空间抑制的动态更新,而不是客体表征受到抑制     

动态情景中颜色特征和身份特征在返回抑制中的作用

在动态的“线索-靶子”范式中引入隧道刺激, 以靶子与线索的非空间特征相同时的反应延迟测量返回抑制效应。实验1利用单向隧道创设客体的空间位置信息明确且可靠的条件, 考察客体的颜色特征在返回抑制中的作用。实验2利用双向隧道创设客体的空间位置信息不明确的条件, 考察客体的颜色特征在返回抑制中的独立作用。实验3、4分别采用与实验1、2类似的方法, 在动态任务情景中考察客体的身份特征在返回抑制中的作用。结果显示, 线索呈现与靶子呈现的时间间隔较长时, 4个实验中均存在显著的返回抑制效应。这表明, 动态情景中, 客体的空间位置信息明确且可靠时, 颜色特征和身份特征在返回抑制中都发挥着重要作用; 客体的空间位置信息不明确时, 颜色特征和身份特征在返回抑制中也都具有相对独立的作用。     

认知老化中有意控制对自动抑制的调节作用

结合比例控制范式与基于空间位置的返回抑制范式, 探讨了认知老化过程中自上而下的有意认知控制对自动抑制的调节作用。结果表明, 当线索有效率由50%提升至80%时, 两组被试的返回抑制量均下降, 老年组表现为返回抑制消失, 但年轻组出现返回抑制的反转, 表明有意认知控制对自动抑制的调节作用受认知老化的影响而发生衰减。同时文章还就认知老化机制的新兴理论—— 执行衰退假说进行了讨论。     

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.     

The relationship between inhibition of return and saccade trajectory deviations

After presentation of a peripheral cue, a subsequent saccade to the cued location is delayed (inhibition of return: IOR). Furthermore, saccades typically deviate away from the cued location. The present study examined the relationship between these inhibitory effects. IOR and saccade trajectory deviations were found after central (endogenous) and peripheral (exogenous) cuing of attention, and both effects were larger with an onset cue than with a color singleton cue. However, a dissociation in time course was found between IOR and saccade trajectory deviations. Saccade trajectory deviations occurred at short delays between the cue and the saccade, but IOR was found at longer delays. A model is proposed in which IOR is caused by inhibition applied to a preoculomotor attentional map, whereas saccade trajectory deviations are caused by inhibition applied to the saccade map, in which the final stage of oculomotor programming takes place.     

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.     

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.     

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。     

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。     

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。     

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.     

颜色和形状工作记忆对非空间返回抑制效应的影响

为进一步考察非空间返回抑制效应是否受工作记忆内容的影响,分别采用颜色和形状工作记忆内容,通过两个实验考察了工作记忆对非空间返回抑制效应的影响。实验结果表明,在颜色和形状工作记忆条件下,均产生了颜色或形状返回抑制效应,并且颜色或形状返回抑制效应量之间均无显著差异,颜色和形状工作记忆内容只增加了判断靶刺激的反应时。研究结论对进一步认识工作记忆内容与非空间返回抑制效应之间的关系有重要参考价值。     

Modulation of spatial Stroop by object-based attention but not by space-based attention

Earlier studies have shown that the spatial Stroop effect systematically decreases when a peripheral precue is presented at the same location as the target, compared to an uncued location condition. In this study, two experiments were conducted to explore whether the cueing modulation of spatial Stroop is object based and/or space based. In Experiment 1, we found evidence favouring the view that the cueing modulation of the spatial Stroop effect is entirely object based, as no differences were found in conflict reduction for the same-location and same-object conditions. In Experiment 2, the cue was predictive, and a similar object-based modulation of spatial Stroop was still observed. However, the direction of such modulation was affected by the rectangles' orientation. Overall, the pattern of results obtained favours the object-integration (Lupiáñez & Milliken, 1999; Lupiáñez, Milliken, Solano, Weaver, & Tipper, 2001) and referential-coding accounts (Danziger, Kingstone, & Ward, 2001) and seems to provide evidence against the attention-shift account (Rubichi, Nicoletti, Iani, & Umilta, 1997; Stoffer, 1991).