Is location cueing inherently superior to color cueing? Not if color is presented early enough

A possible source for the advantage of location cueing over non-spatial cueing is that orienting attention by a location cue is feasible prior to stimulus onset, whereas that is normally not the case with orienting by a non-spatial cue. To examine how critical that source is for observing an advantage, we eliminated it: In a color-preview condition, subjects were to detect a target presented on the background of one of two differently colored circles (where color-location assignment was random). In a no-preview condition, the circles were both gray, but the target was either red or green (where color assignment was random). Cue type (location vs color) was also manipulated. The color preview in Experiment 1 (in which color onset preceded cue onset) was found helpful: Whereas a substantial disparity in validity effects of the two cue types was obtained with no preview, no significant difference was found when a color preview was introduced. The validity effects of both cue types were found to be about the same also in Experiment 2, in which color onset was exactly synchronized with cue onset, and SOA was manipulated. Furthermore, the absence of an SOA x cue type interaction indicated that the time course of the color cue validity did not lag after the time course of the location cue validity, which seems incompatible with the hypothesis that a color cue cannot affect orienting without first computing a location from it prior to cue onset. Overall, the results suggest that the time course of color cueing is not inherently different from that of location cueing once its main disadvantages are removed.     

The effect of reward on orienting and reorienting in exogenous cuing

It is thought that reward-induced motivation influences perceptual, attentional, and cognitive control processes to facilitate behavioral performance. In this study, we investigated the effect of reward-induced motivation on exogenous attention orienting and inhibition of return (IOR). Attention was captured by peripheral onset cues that were nonpredictive for the target location. Participants performed a target discrimination task at short (170 ms) and long (960 ms) cue–target stimulus onset asynchronies. Reward-induced motivation was manipulated by exposing participants to low- and high-reward blocks. Typical cue facilitation effects on initial orienting were observed for both the low- and high-reward conditions. However, IOR was found only for the high-reward condition. This indicates that reward-induced motivation has a clear effect on reorienting and inhibitory processes following the initial capture of attention, but not on initial exogenous orienting that is considered to be exclusively automatic and stimulus-driven. We suggest that initial orienting is completely data-driven, not affected by top-down motivational processes, while reorienting and the accompanying IOR effect involve motivational top-down processes. To support this, we showed that reward-induced motivational processes and top-down control processes co-act in order to improve behavioral performance: High-reward-induced motivation caused an increase in top-down cognitive control, as signified by posterror slowing. Moreover, we show that personality trait propensity to reward-driven behavior (BAS-Drive scale) was related to reward-triggered behavioral changes in top-down reorienting, but not to changes in automatic orienting.     

Searching for inhibition of return in the rat using the covert orienting of attention task

Inhibition of return (IOR) is an important psychological construct describing inhibited responses to previously attended locations. In humans, it is investigated using Posner’s cueing paradigm. This paradigm requires central visual fixation and detection of cued stimuli to the left or right of the fixation point. Stimuli can be validly or invalidly cued, appearing in the same or opposite location to the cue. Although a rat version of the spatial cueing paradigm (the covert orienting of attention task) does exist, IOR has so far not been demonstrated. We therefore investigated whether IOR could be robustly demonstrated in adult male rats using the covert orienting of attention task. This task is conducted in holed wall operant chambers with the central three holes mimicking the set-up for Posner cueing. Across four samples of rats (overall n = 84), we manipulated the following task parameters: stimulus onset asynchronies (Experiments 1–3), cue brightness (Experiment 1b) and the presence of a central reorienting event (Experiment 4). In Experiment 1, we also investigated strain differences by comparing Lister Hooded rats to Sprague–Dawley rats. Although Lister Hooded rats briefly showed evidence of IOR (Experiment 1a, and see Online Resource 1 data), we were unable to replicate this finding in our other experiments using different samples of this strain. Taken together, our findings suggest that IOR cannot be robustly demonstrated in the rat using the covert orienting of attention task conducted in holed wall operant chambers.     

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.     

Incidental learning of secondary attentional cueing

Subjects instructed to detect targets following moderately valid location cues started being presented at some point in the course of the experiment, without having been informed about it, with a color secondary cue on all invalidly cued trials. In Experiment 1 most subjects quickly learned to use the secondary cue, ending in latency cost being eliminated or even turned negative. The effect failed to manifest only when the secondary cue appeared outside the object serving as imperative cue. Experiment 2 showed that performance with a secondary cue differed significantly from the performance in two control conditions in which colors were not correlated with validity or were not presented at all. On the other hand, it resembled performance of subjects informed beforehand about the secondary cue. Awareness of the contingency as well as of its effect on behavior was probed by a post-test questionnaire. An effect of learning without awareness was not observed in Experiment 1, but was found in Experiment 3, where awareness was probed more shortly after the emergence of incidental learning. Conceivably, subjects first learn to use the contingencies implicitly, and only later do they become aware of the outcome of that learning. Apparently, the attentional system might incidentally learn contingencies detected while being engaged in another task and use them for orienting despite a partial conflict with the following as instructed endogenous cues.     

注意控制定势和线索类型在注意捕获中的作用

采用前线索范式, 通过3个实验考察了注意控制定势和线索类型在注意捕获中的作用。实验1要求被试搜索颜色奇异项目标或突现目标, 涉及较弱的注意控制定势, 结果表明, 突现线索在作为匹配线索和不匹配线索时都能捕获注意, 而颜色奇异项线索只有在作为匹配线索时才能捕获注意。实验2要求被试搜索具体特征的红色或白色目标, 使被试建立较强的特征搜索定势, 结果表明, 颜色奇异项线索和突现线索在作为匹配线索时都能捕获注意, 但是在不匹配条件下, 颜色奇异项线索被抑制了, 而突现线索不能捕获注意; 实验3采取go/no-go范式, 要求被试对红色目标进行反应, 对白色目标进行抑制, 并通过设置不同的线索-目标时间间隔来进一步考察注意捕获的机制, 结果表明, 在600 ms间隔下, no-go突现线索被抑制, 而对于go颜色奇异项线索来说, 随着时间间隔的增加, 注意捕获效应减少。结果与相倚捕获假说和抑制独立捕获假说不符, 支持注意转移假说：自上而下的注意控制定势通过把注意从和目标不匹配的特征位置转移发挥作用; 颜色奇异项线索和突现线索的注意捕获机制相同, 但是突现线索相对于颜色奇异项线索来说, 在与目标不匹配的条件下, 更容易捕获注意, 更难被抑制。     

Reflexive orienting in response to short- and long-duration gaze cues in young,young-old,and old-old adults

Shifting visual focus on the basis of the perceived gaze direction of another person is one form of joint attention. In the present study, we investigated whether this socially relevant form of orienting is reflexive and whether it is influenced by age. Green and Woldorff (Cognition 122:96–101, 2012) argued that rapid cueing effects (i.e., faster responses to validly than to invalidly cued targets) were limited to conditions in which a cue overlapped in time with a target. They attributed slower responses following invalid cues to the time needed to resolve the incongruent spatial information provided by the concurrently presented cue and target. In the present study, we examined the orienting responses of young (18–31 years), young-old (60–74 years), and old-old (75–91 years) adults following uninformative central gaze cues that overlapped in time with the target (Exp. 1) or that were removed prior to target presentation (Exp. 2). When the cue and target overlapped, all three groups localized validly cued targets more quickly than invalidly cued targets, and validity effects emerged earlier for the two younger groups (at 100 ms post-cue-onset) than for the old-old group (at 300 ms post-cue-onset). With a short-duration cue (Exp. 2), validity effects developed rapidly (by 100 ms) for all three groups, suggesting that validity effects resulted from reflexive orienting based on the gaze cue information rather than from cue–target conflict. Thus, although old-old adults may be slow to disengage from persistent gaze cues, attention continues to be reflexively guided by gaze cues late in life.     

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。     

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.     

三维空间深度位置上基于空间的返回抑制

采用虚拟现实技术,将Posner经典二维平面中的线索化范式应用到三维空间,通过两个实验操纵了注意沿着不同方向进行直线转移的方式,考察了注意在三维空间深度位置上进行定向/重定向而产生的晚期抑制效应(返回抑制,Inhibition of return)。结果发现：(1)无论注意沿着何种直线转移方式转移都在深度位置上发现了基于空间的返回抑制;(2)无效提示线索条件下,目标出现在三维空间近处空间时的反应显著快于目标出现在远处空间时的反应,导致了近远空间的返回抑制量存在差异。研究说明了返回抑制效应并不是“深度盲”。     

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.     

Impaired color word processing at an unattended location: Evidence from a Stroop task combined with inhibition of return

A Stroop task with separate color bar and color word stimuli was combined with an inhibition-of-return procedure to examine whether visual attention modulates color word processing. In Experiment 1, the color bar was presented at the cued location and the color word at the uncued location, or vice versa, with a 100- or 1,050-msec stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between cue and Stroop stimuli. In Experiment 2, on Stroop trials, the color bar was presented at a central fixated location and the color word at a cued or uncued location above or below the color bar. In both experiments, with a 100-msec SOA, the Stroop effect was numerically larger when the color word was displayed at the cued location than when it was displayed at the uncued location, but with the 1,050-msec SOA, this relation between Stroop effect magnitude and location was reversed. These results provide evidence that processing of the color word in the Stroop task is modulated by the location to which visual attention is directed.     

Does attention affect visual feature integration?

Two questions are investigated in this work: first, whether the integration of color and shape information is affected by attending to the stimulus location, and second, whether attending to a stimulus location enhances the perceptual representation of the stimulus or merely affects decision processes. In three experiments, subjects were briefly presented with colored letters. On most trials, subjects were precued to the stimulus location (valid cue); on some trials, a nonstimulus location was cued (invalid cue). Subjects were less likely to incorrectly combine colors and letter shapes following a valid cue. The attentional facilitation afforded by the cue was not limited to feature integration but also affected the registration of features. However, when the amount of feature information was strictly controlled, attention still affected feature integration. The results indicate that orienting attention to the location of the cue affects the quality of the perceptual representation for features and their integration.     

On the uniqueness of attentional capture by uninformative gaze cues: facilitation interacts with the Simon effect and is rarely followed by IOR.

Orienting to an uninformative peripheral cue is characterized by a brief facilitation followed by a long-lasting inhibition once attention is removed from the cued location. Although central gaze cues cause reflexive orienting, the inhibitory effect that is relatively ubiquitous following exogenous orienting to uninformative peripheral cues has been relatively rare. We hypothesized that IOR might be seen following gaze-induced orienting if attention were effectively returned to centre by a return gaze or return flash. The timecourse of gaze-directed orienting was measured by varying the interval between the gaze cue and a peripheral target requiring an orientation discrimination (permitting measurement of the Simon effect). Significant facilitation was observed at all but the longest SOA tested, 2,880 ms, by which time the facilitation had disappeared with no evidence of IOR. Gaze-induced cuing (which was unaffected by return cue condition) interacted with the Simon effect, decreasing it at the gazed-at location, a pattern that is not seen with more typical endogenous and exogenous cuing.     

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.     

Inhibition of return in response to gaze cues: The roles of time course and fixation cue

Recent studies have demonstrated that orienting of attention in response to nonpredictive gaze cues arises rapidly and automatically, in a similar fashion to peripheral sudden onset cueing. However, while peripheral cues consistently elicit inhibition of return (IOR) at about 300 ms following cue onset, very little is known about inhibition effects in response to gaze cues. The present experiments systematically examined the conditions under which IOR arises with such cues. Reliable inhibition effects were obtained. Importantly, IOR emerged only at long cue-target intervals and only when a second cue actively triggered attention away from the cued location. This suggests that compared to sudden onset cueing, gaze cueing results in both prolonged facilitation and a delayed onset of inhibition processes. Thus, although both types of cues elicit very similar orienting effects in terms of their basic behavioural outcomes, there are more subtle differences between gaze and peripheral cues with respect to the maintenance and quality of those cueing effects across time.     

Attentional effects of counterpredictive gaze and arrow cues

The authors used counterpredictive cues to examine reflexive and volitional orienting to eyes and arrows. Experiment 1 investigated the effects of eyes with a novel design that allowed for a comparison of gazed-at (cued) target locations and likely (predicted) target locations against baseline locations that were not cued and not predicted. Attention shifted reflexively to the cued location and volitionally to the predicted location, and these 2 forms of orienting overlapped in time. Experiment 2 discovered that another well-learned directional stimulus, an arrow, produced a different effect: Attention was shifted only volitionally to the predicted location. The authors suggest that because there is a neural architecture specialized for processing eyes, gaze-triggered attention is more strongly reflexive than orienting to arrows.     

Stimulus discrimination following covert attentional orienting to an exogenous cue.

Five experiments explored exogenous covert visual-attentional orienting following a brief peripheral cue. On each trial an attentional cue was followed by a stimulus in an empty field at 1 of 8 locations on an imaginary circle centered on the fixation point. The cued area size and the cue-target spatial relation were manipulated. Accuracy and response time were affected by the exogenous cue validity. Attention was allocated to a specific location in a visual quadrant: A target at an uncued location in a quadrant was not facilitated as much as target at the cued location, and a target in a different quadrant was inhibited in relation to a neutral condition. Cuing 2 locations in a quadrant was not as facilitative for targets at the cued locations or as inhibitive for targets at other locations compared with cuing a single location in a quadrant. Results are discussed in the context of several extent models of covert visual-spatial attention.     

Inhibition of saccadic eye movements to locations in spatial working memory

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to a bias against overt and covert attentional orienting toward previously attended locations. According to the reorienting hypothesis, IOR is generated when attention is withdrawn from the attended location and is prevented from “returning” to it. The present study investigated whether maintenance of attention at the cued location could affect the inhibition of oculomotor orienting to it. To preclude disengagement of attention, we asked participants to maintain the cued location in working memory. Maintenance of visuospatial information in memory has been shown to be accomplished through a sustained shift of spatial attention to a memorized location. Our results show that oculomotor IOR occurs at a particular location even when that location is kept in working memory (Experiment 1). Furthermore, we demonstrate that the mere act of maintenance of a location in working memory produces oculomotor inhibition similar to IOR (Experiments 2 and 3). We conclude that the oculomotor system is used for coding and maintaining locations in spatial working memory. In addition, we demonstrate that endogenous attention associated with maintenance of a location in working memory can be dissociated from the attention needed for execution of a saccadic eye movement.     

Interactive activation in visual word recognition: constraints imposed by the joint effects of spatial attention and semantics

Two lexical-decision experiments investigated the effects of semantic priming and stimulus intensity when target location varied and was cued by an abrupt onset. In Experiment 1, the spatial cue was a good predictor of target location, and in Experiment 2 it was not. The results indicate that word recognition processes were postponed until spatial attention was focused on the target and that whether attention further affected word recognition depended on cue validity. The joint effects of cue validity and priming interacted when cue validity was high but were additive when cue validity was low. The joint effects of stimulus intensity and semantic priming also varied according to cue validity (i.e., interactive when high and additive when low). The results are discussed in terms of their implications for visual word recognition, the distinction between exogenous and endogenous spatial attention, and how attention is affected by visual word recognition processes.