Inhibition of return in manual and saccadic response systems

When nonpredictive exogenous visual cues are used to reflexively orient covert visual spatial attention, the initial early facilitation for detecting stimuli at cued versus uncued spatial locations develops into inhibition by 300 msec following the cue, a pattern referred to as inhibition of return (IOR). Experiments were carried out comparing the magnitude and time course for development of IOR effects when manual versus saccadic responses were required. The results showed that both manual and saccadic responses result in equivalent amounts of facilitation following initial exposure to a spatial cue. However, IOR developed more quickly for saccadic responses, such that, at certain cue-target SOAs, saccadic responses to targets were inhibited, whereas manual responses were still facilitated. The findings are interpreted in terms of a premotor theory of visual attention.     

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

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 for target discriminations: the effect of repeating discriminated and irrelevant stimulus dimensions

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slowed reaction times when a target repeats in the same location as a preceding stimulus. In four experiments, the participants were presented with two successive stimuli, S1 and S2. In Experiments 1 and 2, the participants made a speeded discrimination of the identity or orientation of both S1 and S2 (Experiment 1) or of S2 only (Experiment 2). An IOR effect occurred for the repetition of stimulus location, but a facilitatory effect occurred if the stimulus remained unchanged or if an overt response was repeated. In Experiments 3 and 4, the participants localized S1 and S2 (Experiment 3) or S2 only (Experiment 4) to the left or right of center. In this case, repeating the same stimulus had no effect: IOR occurred any time stimulus location repeated. These results demonstrate that the expression of IOR is modulated by the repetition of a target object, but only when the task requires the discrimination of that object; when no discrimination is required, IOR is unaffected.     

Inhibition of return to social signals of fear

The present study examined whether inhibition of return (IOR) is modulated by the fear relevance of the cue. Experiment 1 found similar magnitude of IOR was produced by neutral and fear faces and luminance matched cues. To allow a more sensitive measure of endogenously directed attention, Experiment 2 removed a central reorienting cue and more precisely measured the time course of IOR. At stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) of 500, 1,000 and 1,500 ms, fear face and luminance matched cues resulted in similar IOR. These findings suggest that IOR is triggered by event onsets and disregards event value. Views of IOR as an adaptive "foraging facilitator," whereby attention is guided to promote optimal sampling of important environmental events, are discussed.     

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: 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.     

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.     

Inhibition of return to an occluded object depends on expectation

Inhibition of return (IOR) is indexed by slower reaction times to targets presented at previously attended locations or objects. If a moving object is occluded, some studies find IOR, others do not. Four experiments examined whether this inconsistency hinges on the observer's expectation as to whether the object continues to exist at the end of its motion sequence. Results showed that observer expectation is a powerful determining factor: IOR occurs only if the observer expects the object to continue to exist. In contrast, if the object is not occluded, IOR occurs only if the object remains on view immediately before the target is presented. It was concluded that 2 factors, object continuity and observer expectation, mediate both location- and object-based IOR.     

Inhibition of return following instructions to remember and forget.

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slowed responding to a target that appears in the same rather than in a different location as a preceding peripheral onset cue. This study examined IOR as a function of whether the peripheral onset cue was a word that participants were directed to remember or forget. Using a modified item-method directed forgetting paradigm, words appeared one at a time to the left or right, followed by a remember or forget instruction. A target dot was then presented either in the same peripheral location as the preceding word or in a different location; participants made a speeded response to localize this target. Confirming compliance with the memory instructions, recall tests that alternated with blocks of IOR trials (Experiment 1) revealed few intrusions of to-be-forgotten words, and a final recognition test (Experiments 1 and 3) revealed more hits for to-be-remembered words than for to-be-forgotten words. Reaction times to the target dot revealed greater magnitude IOR following to-be-forgotten words than following to-be-remembered words (Experiments 1 and 3). Moreover, when compared to baseline IOR values (Experiment 2), it appeared that this difference resulted from a magnification of IOR following forget instructions and a reduction in IOR following remember instructions. These results demonstrate the usefulness of IOR as an index of memorial processes and suggest that attentional orienting may play a role in the remembering and forgetting of words presented in peripheral visual locations.     

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 and disinhibition of return: Evidence from temporal order judgments

In the present study the temporal order judgment (TOJ) task was used to investigate whether or not inhibition of return (IOR) affects perceptual processing. Previous failures to obtain IOR in the TOJ task have been taken to suggest that IOR does not affect perceptual processing (e.g., Maylor, 1985). The present study showed that IOR is modulated by the temporal disparity between successive targets as well as the relative order in which they appear at cued and uncued locations. Consequently, IOR affects TOJs in some conditions but not in others. The selective occurrence of IOR in the TOJ task provides converging support for the notion that IOR does affect perceptual processing, and also accounts for the previous failures to observe IOR in the TOJ task. Moreover, these and other results suggest that inhibitory processing at the cued location can be dis-inhibited when stimulation occurs at other locations.     

The effect of a masked stimulus on the response to the masking stimulus

Four experiments are reported in which the subjects had to respond to a target that masked a preceding prime via metacontrast masking. In one part of Experiment l, the subjects discriminated the target's shape (square or diamond) by a motor-choice reaction, and in another part they had to respond with a simple reaction. The prime was neutral (circular) with respect to the target's shape. The data showed a facilitation effect. In both tasks the reaction time was reduced by the masked prime. However, the reduction was more pronounced with simple reaction than with choice reaction. In the other experiments, additional primes were used with the same angular shapes as the targets. In Experiments 2 and 3, after discriminating the target's shape by a choice reaction, the subjects had to judge the prime's shape in a signal-detection task. While neither the d' value for discriminating the angular primes from the circular ones (Exp. 2) nor the d' value for distinguishing between the angular primes (Exp. 3) was different from zero, the choice-reaction data showed a congruency effect. With a congruent prime (i.e., a prime that had the same shape as the target), the reaction times were reduced. With an incongruent prime, the reaction times grew. In Experiment 4 the errors were investigated. The facilitation effect was present in the RT, but not in the number of errors, whereas the congruency effect was present in the number, but not in the RT of errors.While the facilitation effect can be attributed either to an unspecific activation by the masked prime or to an influence of the prime on attentional processes, the congruency effect can be explained by the assumption that the masked prime directly activates the specific response, which corresponds to the prime's shape.     

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.