Do action goals mediate social inhibition of return?

Social inhibition of return is the phenomenon whereby an individual is slower to reach to locations to which another individual has recently responded. Although this suggests that an observer represents another person's action, little is known about which aspects of the action are encoded. The present work describes a series of three experiments examining whether social inhibition of return represents the endpoint goal of the action, i.e., is 'goal based'. Pairs of participants sat opposite to one another and alternated responses to a cued or non-cued object presented on a table top. Importantly, either the two participants performed the same interaction with the object or a different interaction. Although all our experiments showed social inhibition of return, the size of the effect was not modulated according to whether each participant had the same or different goal. We conclude that although the mechanisms giving rise to social inhibition of return do encode some aspects of a response they do not code for terminal action goals.     

How social is social inhibition of return?

A number of studies have shown that the motor actions of one individual can affect the attention of an observer. In one notable example, “social inhibition of return,” observers are relatively slow to initiate a response to a location where another individual has just responded. In the present article we examine the degree to which this phenomenon can be considered a social effect. We find that unlike the related social, or “joint,” Simon effect, social inhibition of return is not influenced by competitive versus cooperative interaction, nor by live versus recorded interaction. We do find however that co-actors need to turn-take in order for the effect to occur. Thus, so-called “social” inhibition of return only reaches a minimal threshold to be considered a social phenomenon.     

Action or attention in social inhibition of return?

Psychological Research - When two individuals alternate reaching responses to targets located in a visual display, reaction times are longer when responses are directed to where the co-actor just...     

Is social inhibition of return due to action co-representation?

When two individuals alternate reaching responses to visual targets presented on a shared workspace, one individual is slower to respond to targets occupying the same position as their partner’s previous response. This phenomenon is thought to be due to processes that inhibit the initiation of a movement to a location recently acted upon. However, two distinct forms of the inhibition account have been posited, one based on inhibition of an action, the other based on inhibition of an action and location. Furthermore, an additional recent explanation suggests the phenomenon is due to mechanisms that give rise to action congruency effects. Thus the three different theories differ in the degree to which action co-representation plays a role in the effect. The aim of the present work was to examine these competing accounts. Three experiments demonstrated that when identical actions are made, the effect is modulated by the configuration of the visual stimuli acted upon and the perceptual demands of the task. In addition, when the co-actors perform different actions to the same target, the effect is still observed. These findings support the hypothesis that this particular joint action phenomenon is generated via social cues that induce location-based inhibition of return rather than being due to shared motor co-representations.     

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.     

Does “inhibition of return” occur in discrimination tasks?

When attention is drawn to a location and then withdrawn, responding to a stimulus at that location may be slower than to one at a new location. This “inhibition of return” (IOR) has not been reliably demonstrated in tasks that require discrimination of targets from nontargets. The present experiments replicated IOR in detection and localization tasks only when target/nontarget discrimination was not also required. When discrimination was required, a consistent samelocation advantage occurred for repeated targets. Changed targets may, however, induce a bias toward opposite responses. The results cast doubt on IOR as a general attentional phenomenon.     

Perceptual and motor inhibition of return: components or flavors?

The most common evidence for inhibition of return (IOR) is the robust finding of increased response times to targets that appear at previously cued locations following a cue?Ctarget interval exceeding ~300?ms. In a variation on this paradigm, Abrams and Dobkin (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20:467?C477, 1994b) observed that IOR was greater when measured with a saccadic response to a peripheral target than with that to a central arrow, leading to the conclusion that saccadic responses to peripheral targets comprise motoric and perceptual components (the two-components theory for saccadic IOR), whereas saccadic responses to a central target comprise a single motoric component. In contrast, Taylor and Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26:1639?C1656, 2000) discovered that IOR for saccadic responses was equivalent for central and peripheral targets, suggesting a single motoric effect under these conditions. Rooted in methodological differences between the studies, three possible explanations for this discrepancy can be found in the literature. Here, we demonstrate that the empirical discrepancy is rooted in the following methodological difference: Whereas Abrams and Dobkin (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20:467?C477, 1994b) administered central arrow and peripheral onset targets in separate blocks, Taylor and Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26:1639?C1656, 2000) randomly intermixed these stimuli in a single block. Our results demonstrate that (1) blocking central arrow targets fosters a spatial attentional control setting that allows for the long-lasting IOR normally generated by irrelevant peripheral cues to be filtered and (2) repeated sensory stimulation has no direct effect on the magnitude of IOR measured by saccadic responses to targets presented about 1?s after a peripheral cue.     

Does oculomotor inhibition of return influence fixation probability during scene search?

Oculomotor inhibition of return (IOR) is believed to facilitate scene scanning by decreasing the probability that gaze will return to a previously fixated location. This "foraging" hypothesis was tested during scene search and in response to sudden-onset probes at the immediately previous (one-back) fixation location. The latencies of saccades landing within 1o of the previous fixation location were elevated, consistent with oculomotor IOR. However, there was no decrease in the likelihood that the previous location would be fixated relative to distance-matched controls or an a priori baseline. Saccades exhibit an overall forward bias, but this is due to a general bias to move in the same direction and for the same distance as the last saccade (saccadic momentum) rather than to a spatially specific tendency to avoid previously fixated locations. We find no evidence that oculomotor IOR has a significant impact on return probability during scene search.     

When do response-related episodic retrieval effects co-occur with inhibition of return?

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics - At some point, spatial priming effects more faithfully reflect response selection processes than they do attentional orienting or sensory processes....     

Inhibition of return for the length of a line?

Inhibition of return is most often measured using an exogenous spatial cuing method. The experiments presented here follow up on a small number of studies that have examined whether a similar effect occurs for nonspatial stimulus attributes. In Experiments 1 and 2, the task was to identify a target line as either short or long. In this context, targets on valid trials were of the same length as that of a preceding cue, whereas targets on invalid trials were of a different length than that of a preceding cue. The results were similar to those in spatial orienting studies in that responses were slower for valid than for invalid targets only at stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) longer than 300 msec. In Experiment 3, the stimuli were the same but the task was to detect the onset of the target line. This task change resulted in slower responses for valid than for invalid targets at all SOAs. A similar result was observed in Experiment 4, in which validity was defined by color rather than line length, and the task was to identify the target color. The discussion centers on an opponent process approach to interpreting cuing effects, and consequent difficulties in distinguishing spatial and nonspatial cuing effects based on their time course.     

Individual performance based on cognitive experimental measurements? The case of inhibition of return

Inhibition of Return (IOR) is a mechanism whereby the attentional system favors novel locations by inhibiting already scanned ones. In spatial attention tasks, it commonly occurs when the interval between cue onset and target onset is longer than 300 ms. The positive difference between reactions in the valid condition and those in the invalid one shows that responses to target stimuli are slower following a valid cue than responses to target stimuli following an invalid cue. IOR is a very robust phenomenon at the group mean level; however, this study demonstrates that its standard error of measurement is extremely high, which seriously challenges any attempt to interpret an individual score as representing the characteristics of a subject's attention system. Furthermore, this reliability problem might diminish the likelihood of finding differences between groups and conditions. The study shows that these problems may be partially corrected by employing the back-to-center paradigm.     

Why does perfectionism confer risk for depressive symptoms? A meta-analytic test of the mediating role of stress and social disconnection

The stress generation model posits perfectionistic concerns and perfectionistic strivings generate stress and, in turn, depression. Alternatively, the Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model (PSDM) maintains perfectionistic concerns and perfectionistic strivings confer risk for depression through social disconnection. However, inconsistent findings, underpowered studies, and overreliance on cross-sectional designs have obscured understanding of the mediating role of stress and social disconnection in the perfectionism–depression link. We addressed this by conducting the first meta-analytic test of the stress generation model and PSDM. Our search yielded 18 longitudinal studies (N = 5,568) involving community adults, undergraduates, medical students, and psychiatric patients. Results revealed perfectionistic concerns predicted increased depression through social disconnection and stress, whereas perfectionistic strivings predicted increased depression through social disconnection, but not stress.     

The formation of novel social category conjunctions in working memory: A possible role for the episodic buffer?

Recent research (e.g., Hutter, Crisp, Humphreys, Waters, &; Moffit; Siebler) has confirmed that combining novel social categories involves two stages (e.g., Hampton; Hastie, Schroeder, &; Weber). Furthermore, it is also evident that following stage 1 (constituent additivity), the second stage in these models involves cognitively effortful complex reasoning. However, while current theory and research has addressed how category conjunctions are initially represented to some degree, it is not clear precisely where we first combine or bind existing social constituent categories. For example, how and where do we compose and temporarily store a coherent representation of an individual who shares membership of “female” and “blacksmith” categories? In this article, we consider how the revised multi-component model of working memory (Baddeley) can assist in resolving the representational limitations in the extant two-stage theoretical models. This is a new approach to understanding how novel conjunctions form new bound “composite” representations.     

Is “Inhibition of Return” due to the inhibition of the return of attention?

Inhibition of Return (IOR) is usually explained in terms of orienting–reorienting of attention, emphasizing an underlying mechanism that inhibits the return of attention to previously selected locations. Recent data challenge this explanation to the extent that the IOR effect is observed at the location where attention is oriented to, where no reorienting of attention is needed. To date, these studies have involved endogenous attentional selection of attention and thus indicate a dissociation between the voluntary attention of spatial attention and the IOR effect. The present work demonstrates a dissociation between the involuntary orienting of spatial attention and the IOR effect. We combined nonpredictive peripheral cues with nonpredictive central orienting cues (either arrows or gaze). The IOR effect was observed to operate independent of involuntary spatial orienting. These data speak against the “reorienting hypothesis” of IOR. We suggest an alternative explanation whereby the IOR effect reflects a cost in detecting a new event (the target) at the location where another event (a cue) was coded before.     

Inhibitory effects of repeating color and shape: inhibition of return or repetition blindness?

There is a current debate regarding whether attention is influenced by stimulus attributes other than location. The present article replicates and extends previous findings that repeating the nonspatial attribute of color leads to a delay in target detection (M. B. Law, J. Pratt, & R. A. Abrams, 1995). Repetition disadvantage effects were found for the stimulus attributes of both color and shape, as well as for location. However, the nonspatial repetition disadvantage disappeared if the stimuli were presented in peripheral locations (Experiments 3a, 3b, and 4) or the cue was presented for 50 ms (Experiment 6). Moreover, the magnitude of the repetition disadvantage tended to decline as the cue-target stimulus-onset asynchrony increased (Experiments 5a, 5b, and 6). These results suggest that a repetition blindness mechanism may underlie the repetition disadvantage effects of nonspatial features, rather than an inhibition of return mechanism.     

Prolonged development of auditory skills: A role for perceptual anchoring?

Many auditory skills continue to develop beyond infancy and even into adolescence, but the factors underlying this prolonged development remain poorly understood. Of interest here is the contribution of on-line statistical learning of stimulus repetitions (anchoring) to the development of auditory spectral and temporal discrimination, as well as the potential contributions of auditory attention and working memory. Children, aged 6–13 years, as well as adults (age range: 21–33 years) were tested on auditory frequency and duration discrimination. Each type of discrimination was measured in two conditions (XAB and XXXAB) designed to afford different levels of anchoring by varying the number of repetitions of a standard stimulus (X) prior to the presentation of the test tone (A or B) in each trial. Auditory attention and working memory were also assessed. Whereas duration and frequency discrimination in either condition did not reach adult level prior to 11 years of age, the magnitude of the anchoring effect was similar across ages. These data suggest that perceptual anchoring matures prior to the attainment of adult-like discrimination thresholds. Likewise, neither attention nor working memory could account for the observed developmental trajectories. That auditory discrimination and anchoring follow dissociable developmental trajectories suggests that different factors might contribute to the development of each. We therefore conclude that although anchoring might be necessary for attaining good auditory discrimination, it does not account for the prolonged development of auditory frequency and duration discrimination in school-aged children.     

Diversion of mentally disordered offenders: A legitimate role for clinicians?

Consultations to the courts often extend beyond criminal competencies and may include implicit statements regarding the diversion of mentally disordered offenders to treatment facilities. Arguments for diversion are based on humanitarian interests and treatment needs. Arguments opposing diversion recommendations emphasize (a) the variability of opinions regarding treatability, (b) the lack of sufficient outcome data, and (c) the potential for negative consequences in offering unsolicited opinions on diversion. Initial data from 271 pretrial evaluations underscore the range in psychiatric use of diversion recommendations, although inpatient referrals in particular appear to be based on clinical status.     

Inhibition of return: A “depth-blind” mechanism?

When attention is oriented to a peripheral visual event, observers respond faster to stimuli presented at a cued location than at an uncued location. Following initial reaction time facilitation responses are slower to stimuli subsequently displayed at the cued location, an effect known as inhibition of return (IOR). Both facilitatory and inhibitory effects have been extensively investigated in two-dimensional space. Facilitation has also been documented in three-dimensional space, however the presence of IOR in 3D space is unclear, possibly because IOR has not been evaluated in an empty 3D space. Determining if IOR is sensitive to the depth plane of stimuli or if only their bi-dimensional location is inhibited may clarify the nature of the IOR. To address this issue, we used an attentional cueing paradigm in three-dimensional (3D) space. Results were obtained from fourteen participants showed IOR components in 3D space when binocular disparity was used to induce depth. We conclude that attentional orienting in depth operates as efficiently as in the bi-dimensional space.     

Inhibitory tagging at subsequently fixated locations: Generation of “inhibition of return” without saccade inhibition

In two experiments, an inhibitory tag was activated by a peripheral cue after which a saccade was made to either the cued or, with equal probability, the uncued location. Key press RTs were measured for detecting a target that then appeared, with equal probability, either at fixation or at an eccentric location. In Experiment 1, the peripheral cue onset 400 ms before the saccade instruction, and participants therefore were obliged to inhibit a saccade towards the cue. Detection was slower at the cued location whether it appeared at, or eccentric from, fixation. In Experiment 2, the peripheral cue onset after the instruction to make the saccade but before the eyes had moved. Inhibitory tagging was again observed for targets at fixation, but the effect was smaller than for eccentric targets. These findings confirm that withdrawal of attention from a cued location is not required to generate an inhibitory tag, and that the cued locus remains inhibited even if it is subsequently attended and a saccade made to fixate it. Moreover, saccade inhibition is not sufficient to account for inhibitory tagging, although it may also engender an independent inhibitory effect.