Inhibition of return at multiple locations and its impact on visual search

Previous research has shown that when attention is directed sequentially to multiple locations, inhibition of return (IOR) can be observed at each location, with a larger magnitude of IOR at the more recently attended locations. In the present study we asked whether this “multiple IOR” effect influences search only for simple feature targets, as has been shown in the past, or whether it generalizes to more complex, attentionally demanding conjunction search situations. The results demonstrated that IOR effects (1) occur for more complex conjunction search environments, (2) are larger for the attentionally demanding conjunction search, and (3) occur at more locations for conjunction search than feature search. Together these data provide a clear demonstration of the robustness and responsiveness of the IOR effect across search situations—which is precisely what is expected of a phenomenon posited to facilitate efficient visual search of real-world environments. Nevertheless, these data do not firmly establish that IOR effects established by the cueing paradigm before search is implemented are the same as the IOR effects that are assumed to be established during search itself. We suggest that this disconnection between paradigms highlights a fundamental limitation of laboratory-based research.     

Inhibition of return for objects and locations in static displays

When orienting attention, inhibition mechanisms prevent the return of attention to previously examined stimuli. This inhibition of the return of attention (IOR) has been shown to be associated additively with location- and object-based representations. That is, when static objects are attended, IOR is associated with both the object and the location cued, and hence IOR is larger than when only spatial location is attended. Recently McAuliffe, Pratt, and O'Donnell (2001) failed to observe such additive effects except under a narrow set of conditions (at short cue-target intervals and using mixed blocks in which object- and pure location-based effects were probed in the same display). The present study shows that additive IOR effects are observed under conditions that violate all of these boundary conditions. The results also show that IOR is modulated by internal structural properties of objects. These findings are cosistent with the hypothesis that IOR operates over functionally independent object- and location-based frames of reference.     

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 return

Immediately following an event at a peripheral location there is facilitation for the processing of other stimuli near that location. This is said to reflect a reflexive shift of attention towards the source of stimulation. After attention is removed from such a peripheral location, there is then delayed responding to stimuli subsequently displayed there. This inhibitory aftereffect, first described in 1984 and later labeled 'inhibition of return (IOR)', encourages orienting towards novel locations and hence might facilitate foraging and other search behaviors. Since its relatively recent discovery, IOR has been the subject of intensive investigation, from many angles and with a wide variety of approaches. After describing the seminal contribution of Posner and Cohen ('Who'), this review will discuss what causes IOR and, once initiated, what effects IOR has on subsequent processing ('What'). The time course ('When') and spatial distribution ('Where') of IOR, and what is known about IOR's neural implementation ('How') and functional significance ('Why') are also discussed.     

Inhibition of return is at the midpoint of simultaneous cues

When multiple cues are presented simultaneously, Klein, Christie, and Morris (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12:295–300, 2005) found a gradient of inhibition (of return, IOR), with the slowest simple manual detection responses occurring to targets in the direction of the center of gravity of the cues. Here, we explored the possibility of extending this finding to the saccade response modality, using methods of data analysis that allowed us to consider the relative contributions of the distance from the target to the center of gravity of the array of cues and the nearest element in the cue array. We discovered that the bulk of the IOR effect with multiple cues, in both the previous and present studies, can be explained by the distance between the target and the center of gravity of the cue array. The present results are consistent with the proposal advanced by Klein et al., (2005) suggesting that this IOR effect is due to population coding in the oculomotor pathways (e.g., the superior colliculus) driving the eye movement system toward the center of gravity of the cued array.     

Inhibition of return for faces

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slower reaction times when a target appears unpredictably in the same location as a preceding cue, rather than in a different location. In the present study, frontal images of human faces were presented intact as face configurations, were rearranged to produce scrambled-face configurations, or were pixilated and randomized to produce nonface configurations. In an orienting paradigm designed to elicit IOR, face and scrambled-face stimuli were used as cues (Experiment 1), as targets (Experiment 2), or along with pixilated nonface stimuli as both cues and targets (Experiment 3). The magnitude of IOR for subsequent localization targets was unaffected by cue configuration. Likewise, the magnitude of IOR was unaffected by target configuration. These results suggest that IOR is a "blind" mechanism that is unaffected by the mere occurrence of biologically relevant cue and target stimuli.     

Inhibition of return exaggerates change blindness

Peripheral cues trigger attention shifts, which facilitate perceptual processing and enhance visual awareness. However, this facilitation is superseded by an inhibition of return (IOR) effect, which biases attention away from the cued location. While the link between facilitatory effects of visual attention and awareness is well established, no study has reported negative effects of spatial cueing on visual awareness. This failure is puzzling, given the claim that attention is a necessary precondition for awareness. If attention is necessary for awareness, inhibiting attention should also inhibit awareness. This leads to a slightly counterintuitive prediction: Spatial cueing will inhibit awareness at long cue–target latencies. This study shows that subliminal peripheral cues exaggerate change blindness at long cue–change latencies, demonstrating that IOR can suppress visual awareness of changes and suggesting that IOR can directly affect the contents of consciousness.     

Inhibition of return in discrimination tasks

Although inhibition of return is known to affect a wide range of detection tasks, it has not been found consistently in discrimination tasks. To examine this issue, 5 experiments were conducted in which participants discriminated between a visual target and a distractor. The responses were not inhibited if, before the onset of stimuli, attention had been overtly oriented (i.e., an eye movement was made) to the future target location and the stimulus at that location was the same symbol as the upcoming target. However, if attention was covertly oriented (i.e., no eye movement was made) to the future location of the target, or if the stimulus at the earlier attended location was a symbol different from the target, responses to the target were inhibited. Overall, the findings provide insights into the relation between movements of attention and discrimination judgments and support the notion that inhibition of return is an attentional phenomenon.     

Inhibition of return to occluded objects

Since many visual objects are vulnerable to occlusion, an active process that tracks objects behind occluders confers considerable ecological validity to the visual system. We studied this possibility by testing whether inhibition of return can be observed with occluded objects. In our experiments, two moving objects disappeared or reappeared behind occluders while a cue and a probe were presented. Contrary to the results of a previous study (Tipper, Weaver, Jerreat, & Burak, 1994), responses were consistently delayed for the cued object that was occluded when it was cued (Experiment 1), when it was probed (Experiment 2), or both (Experiment 3). These results suggest that attention can select occluded objects that are out of view. Our findings are in line with prior studies that have demonstrated similar perceptual/attentional effects for occluded objects, as well as for visible objects.     

Inhibition of return using discrimination of location

The present study investigated "inhibition of return" which refers to increased response latency when the target in a location discrimination task appears in the same location on consecutive trials. Location discrimination tasks were performed by 28 university students (19-21 years of age) in two experiments. In Exp. 1 the task was to press a left or right button in response to a stimulus displayed on a computer screen. The first condition manipulated stimulus-response compatibility which resulted in changing the inhibition of return. Inhibition of return was stronger when the condition was stimulus-response incompatibility. This result shows that inhibition of return functions strongly under incompatible conditions. A second condition required performance of dual tasks in Exp. 2. Again, changes in inhibition of return were seen. These results show that inhibition of return functions strongly under both dual task and incompatible conditions. Inhibition of return was interpreted as functioning strongly when the task was more difficult.     

Inhibition of return and manual pointing movements

To examine whether the motor inhibition of return (IOR) postulated by Taylor and Klein (1998, 2000) generalizes to manual guided movements or is restricted to saccadic responses, the following three experiments were conducted. The first experiment combined peripheral cues (which generate IOR) with four types of manual responses made to central targets (central arrow indicating the response location). The responses were made on a touch-screen and were the equivalent of either a detection keypress, a choice keypress, a detection-guided pointing movement, or a choice-guided pointing movement. No IOR was found for any of the responses. The second experiment replicated the main result under eye fixation control. In Experiment 3, peripheral cues and peripheral targets were used, and IOR was present in all responses. Overall, these finding suggest that motor-based IOR is restricted to the oculomotor system. Implications for motor-based IOR and attention-based IOR are discussed.     

Inhibition of return impairs episodic memory access

The term inhibition of return (IOR) refers to a bias against returning attention to a location or object that has recently been attended. The effect has been shown to occur in various perceptual tasks including stimulus detection, localization, and discrimination, but also to affect higher cognitive processes like lexical access. The present experiments examined whether inhibition of return would impair the high-level processing that is required in accessing item representations in episodic memory. The results show that reaction times for recognition memory decisions are increased under IOR. Furthermore, IOR affects the accuracy of recognition memory, and this effect interacts with the ease of memory access, manipulated, for example, by encoding depth in the learning phase. These results suggest that IOR impairs attentional processing up to the highest cognitive levels, including the access of prior item encounters in episodic memory.     

Inhibition of return in subliminal letter priming

The present study combined exogenous spatial cueing with masked repetition priming to study attentional influences on the processing of subliminal stimuli. Participants performed an alphabetic decision task (letter versus pseudo-letter classification) with central targets and briefly presented peripherally located primes that were either cued or not cued by an abrupt onset. A relatively long delay between cue and prime was used to investigate the effect of inhibition of return (IOR) on the processing of subliminal masked primes. Primes presented to the left visual field showed standard effects of Cue Validity and no IOR (significant priming with valid cues only). Primes presented to the right visual field showed no priming from valid cues (an IOR effect), and priming with invalid cues that depended on hand of response to letter targets (right-hand in Experiment 1, left-hand in Experiment 2). The results are interpreted in terms of a differential speed of engagement and disengagement of attention to the right and left visual fields for alphabetic stimuli, coupled with a complex interaction that arises between Prime Relatedness and response-hand.     

Inhibition of return in children and adolescents

Inhibition of return (IOR), slowed responding to targets at a cued location after attention is removed from this location, has been shown to occur both in adults and in infants. To explore suggestion that the timecourse of IOR depends on factors that might affect the efficiency with which attention is removed from the cued location, we compared the performance of young children (5-10-year-olds, N=49, M=8 years, 4 months) to older children and adolescents (11-17-year-olds, N=61, M=14 years) in single and double cue procedures. Cue-target interval was varied to measure the timecourse of IOR in this within-subjects localization task. Whereas no IOR was found in the young group unless a double cue procedure was used, in the older group, we found IOR at all intervals with the double cue procedure and the typical crossover pattern, with early facilitation followed by inhibition in the single cue procedure.     

Inhibition of return: Unraveling a paradox

Although inhibition of return (IOR) is widely believed to aid search by discouraging reexamination of previously inspected locations, its impact actually appears to decline as the number of target locations increases. We test three possible reasons for this paradoxical result: (1) IOR is capacity-limited, (2) IOR is sensitive to subtle changes in target location probability, and (3) IOR decays with distance from a previously attended location. The present investigation provides strong support for the third explanation, indicating that a gradient of inhibition is centered on previously attended locations. We note that this inhibitory gradient resolves a paradox in the literature. Moreover, we speculate that the inhibitory gradient may reflect a “similarity space” within which target locations near to the cue are tagged with inhibition due to their similarity to the cued location. The farther the target location is away, the less similar it is to the cued location, and thus the less inhibition it receives.     

Inhibition of return and attentional control settings

In the present study, we used a spatial cuing paradigm in conjunction with a choice identification task to investigate whether exogenous attentional orienting and inhibition of return are affected by attentional control settings. As in previous studies (e.g., Folk, Remington, & Johnston, 1992), onset- and color-defined targets were crossed with uninformative onset- and color-defined cues. As expected, when the cue-target stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) was short (i.e., 100 msec), the results showed that exogenous attentional orienting was contingent on attentional set; attentional capture occurred in response to a particular cue only when the feature that defined the cue also defined the target (Folk et al., 1992). More importantly, when the cue-target SOA was long (i.e., 1,000 msec), the results showed that the occurrence of inhibition of return was also contingent on attentional set, at least partially so; inhibition of return occurred in response to onset cues only when they preceded onset targets. In contrast, inhibition of return never occurred in response to color cues (at a variety of long SOAs). The associations and dissociations that were observed between exogenous attentional orienting and inhibition of return are discussed in terms of posterior and anterior attention networks in the brain (Posner & Petersen, 1990).     

Inhibition of return from stimulus to response

In a standard inhibition-of-return (IOR) paradigm using a manual key-press response, we examined the effect of IOR both on the amplitude of early sensory event-related brain potential (ERP) components and on the motor-related lateralized readiness potential (LRP). IOR was associated with a delay of premotor processes (target-locked LRP latency) and reduced sensory ERP activity. No effect of IOR was found on motor processes (response-locked LRP latency). Thus, IOR must arise at least in part from changes in perceptual processes, and, at least when measured with manual key presses, IOR does not arise from inhibition of motor processes. These results are consistent with the results of attention-orienting studies and provide support for an inhibition-of-attention explanation for IOR.     

Inhibition of return in perception and action

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the delay in responses to previously cued locations. Whether IOR influences perceptual and/or motor processes has been controversial. To determine IOR effects on perception and action, this study examined IOR in spatially directed hand reaching (Experiment 1) and spatial localization of targets with a mouse cursor (i.e., an indirect visuomotor mapping/perceptual task; Experiment 2). The reaction times showed delayed responses for targets appearing within the whole cued hemifield for both tasks. However, hypometric spatial biases were consistently found only with directed reaching. Spatial biases in the mouse localization task were indirectly influenced by IOR and distinct from those in the reaching task. The dissociation in spatial characteristics for directed reaching vs. perception suggests that the effects of IOR are task dependent, but may be more directly linked to the dorsal motor system.     

Inhibition of return in a discrimination task

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to a bias against returning visual attention to a location that has been recently attended. Although IOR has been demonstrated in a wide range of detection tasks, it has not been reliably shown in discrimination tasks. The results of the present experiment, in which eye movement responses and a cue-target procedure were used, indicate that IOR can exist in a discrimination task. Moreover, the results indicate that the amount of IOR in the discrimination task was approximately equal to that found in the detection task. The results suggest that IOR will be obtained in a discrimination task if the prior allocation of attention does not yield any useful information concerning the forthcoming discrimination judgment.