Temporal expectancy modulates inhibition of return in a discrimination task

This research examined the influence of cue temporal predictability on inhibition of return (IOR) in a discrimination task. In exogenous attention experiments, the cue that summons attention is noninformative as to where the target will appear. However, it is predictive as to when it will appear. In previous work, it was demonstrated that temporal predictability does not influence IOR in detection tasks. In this work, it is shown that IOR is influenced by temporal predictability in discrimination tasks. Predictability was manipulated by using three stimulus onset asynchrony distributions: nonaging, aging, and accelerated aging. IOR was found when the cue predicted target appearance and was modulated by temporal information. In the nonaging distribution (in which the cue did not predict target appearance), there was no 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.     

Is inhibition of return a reflexive effect?

The inhibition of return (IOR) phenomenon is routinely considered an effect of reflexive attention because the paradigm used to generate IOR employs peripheral cues that are uninformative as to where a target will appear. Because the cues are spatially unreliable it is thought that there is no reason for attention to be committed volitionally to them, and hence, the IOR effect is considered reflexive. What has been generally overlooked, however, is that the cues provide reliable temporal information as to when a target will occur. This predictive information is used by participants to prepare volitionally for when a target is likely to appear. We investigated whether the IOR effect is a product of the volitional application of attention to peripheral cues for the use of their temporal information. To test this idea we rendered the temporal information provided by peripheral cues unreliable. While this eliminated participants using the cues volitionally, it did not abolish the IOR phenomenon. These data demonstrate two new findings. First, the IOR effect is fundamentally a reflexive phenomenon. Second, when peripheral cues are not used volitionally, the IOR effect is attenuated. Together, the present findings indicate that the IOR effect can be modulated by volitional (top-down) processes but it is not the product of them. We argue that an intimate link between fronto-parietal regions and the superior colliculus provide a functional neural mechanism for this volitional effect to impact 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.     

Predictability of the cue-target relation and the time-course of auditory inhibition of return

The possibility that the time-course of auditory inhibition of return (IOR) might depend on the temporal or spatial predictability of the cue-target relation was investigated. In all the experiments, a location cue was followed by a target that was to be localized. An inhibitory effect became apparent at a longer stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) when either the temporal or the spatial relation was predictable, rather than when either was unpredictable. A facilitative effect was apparent at a 100-msec SOA, irrespective of the predictability of the cue-target relation. These results establish that the time-course of the inhibitory component of location-based auditory IOR depends on the predictability of the temporal and spatial relations of cue and target. The theoretical implications of these results are considered, and a dual-process model of auditory selective attention is offered.     

Inhibition of return is unimpressed by emotional cues

Inhibition of return (IOR) is a phenomenon observed when a target unexpectedly appears in the place of a preceding cue: With long cue–target stimulus onset asynchronies, reaction times are longer than for targets that appear in an alternative location. Cognitive theories of anxiety suppose that the IOR effect diminishes with threatening, biologically relevant cues because these catch and hold attention. To test this hypothesis, we conducted three experiments, in which emotional valence of cues (animals or facial expressions) had no influence on the strength of the IOR effect, neither in an unselected sample of students nor in highly spider-fearful or socially anxious participants. Inhibition of return appears to be a robust effect, blind to cue valence.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

视觉返回抑制的实验范式

综述了视觉返回抑制的实验范式及相关研究。Posner和Cohen在研究视觉空间注意内部转移过程的实验中发现了返回抑制现象,这一实验被视为经典的返回抑制实验。后来通过大量的研究,形成了线索-靶子和靶子-靶子两大实验范式。线索-靶子范式中根据线索呈现方式、任务类型、刺激呈现方式等方面的不同,又可以细分为一系列小的范式和方法;而靶子-靶子范式的应用主要集中在与辨别任务的结合,以及跨通道的研究中     

The role of spatial working memory in inhibition of return: evidence from divided attention tasks

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to a bias against returning attention to a location that has been recently attended. In the present experiments, we examined the role of working memory in IOR by introducing secondary tasks (in the temporal interval between the cue and the target) that involved a working memory component. When the secondary task was nonspatial in nature (monitoring odd digits or adding digits), IOR was present, although overall reaction times were greater in the presence of the secondary task. When the task involved a spatial working memory load (remembering the directionality of arrows or the orientation of objects), IOR was eliminated. However, when the participants had incentive to process the directionality of an arrow but did not have to use any memory system, IOR persisted at peripheral locations. Overall, the results suggest that IOR is partially mediated by a spatial working memory system.     

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。     

三维倾斜平面的返回抑制

以随机点立体图为实验材料,采用三维空间线索－目标范式,将刺激呈现于同一视野位置以排除眼跳因素干扰,通过观察有意注意倾斜平面和无意注意倾斜平面与测试平面间的方向一致性和角度一致性对检测平面加工的影响,探讨了注意在不同倾斜平面间的转移是否产生返回抑制。结果表明：（1）以视差线索构造的三维视觉空间中,存在与注意有关的返回抑制效应;（2）无意注意加工能导致返回抑制,注意引导平面比无意注意平面引起更大的抑制效应。本研究的结果支持Posner返回抑制是由注意转移所致的观点     

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.     

The effects of ignored versus foveated cues upon inhibition of return: An event-related potential study

Taylor and Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26:1639–1656, 2000) discovered two mutually exclusive “flavors” of inhibition of return (IOR): When the oculomotor system is “actively suppressed,” IOR affects input processes (the perception/attention flavor), whereas when the oculomotor system is “engaged,” IOR affects output processes (the motor flavor). Studies of brain activity with ignored cues have typically reported that IOR reduces an early sensory event-related potential (ERP) component (i.e., the P1 component) of the brain’s response to the target. Since eye movements were discouraged in these experiments, the P1 reduction might be a reflection of the perception/attention flavor of IOR. If, instead of ignoring the cue, participants made a prosaccade to the cue (and then returned to fixation) before responding to the target, the motor flavor of IOR should then be generated. We compared these two conditions while monitoring eye position and recording ERPs to the targets. If the P1 modulation is related to the perceptual/attentional flavor of IOR, we hypothesized that it might be absent when the motoric flavor of IOR was generated by a prosaccade to the cue. Our results demonstrated that target-related P1 reductions and behavioral IOR were similar, and significant, in both conditions. However, P1 modulations were significantly correlated with behavioral IOR only when the oculomotor system was actively suppressed, suggesting that P1 modulations may only affect behaviorally exhibited IOR when the attentional/perceptual flavor of IOR is recruited.     

The effect of previous trial type on inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the finding that targets appearing at previously cued locations are more slowly responded to than targets appearing at previously uncued locations when a relatively long temporal interval occurs between the cue and target. This experiment was conducted to determine whether the magnitude of IOR is influenced by the type of preceding trial (cued or uncued) and/or the location of the cue/target on the previous trial. Although no effect of cue/target location is observed, there was a marked effect of previous trial type, as IOR was greater following an uncued trial relative to a cued trial. This effect was attributable to differences in the response time as a function of previous trial type: specifically, participants were faster to respond to cued and uncued trials when the previous trial type was identical.     

Rapid onset and long-term inhibition of return in the multiple cuing paradigm

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the finding that targets at cued locations are responded to more slowly than targets at uncued locations when a relatively long temporal interval occurs between the two events. In studies which have examined the time course of IOR (e.g., Samuel & Kat in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 897-906, 2003), the effect is generally shown to develop at around 200 ms and dissipate at around 3,000 ms following a cue. A number of recent studies, however, have demonstrated that IOR can develop much more quickly (up to 50 ms following a cue) and last much longer (up to 13 min following a cue) in certain tasks. The present study uses the multiple cuing paradigm to determine whether IOR can be observed outside the normally reported temporal boundaries (300-3,000 ms) when attention is shifted very quickly (every 15 ms) or very slowly (every 1,500 ms) throughout the visual field. IOR was observed as quickly as 30 ms following cue onset and as long as 6,000 ms following cue onset. Implications for the role of IOR in visual search are discussed.     

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。