Examining location-based and object-based components of inhibition of return in static displays

Tipper and Colleagues (e.g., Jordan & Tipper, 1998; Tipper, Driver, & Weaver, 1991; Tipper, Weaver, Jerreat, & Burak, 1994) have provided support for inhibition of return (IOR) being composed of a location-based and an object-based component. They were able to separate out the effects of location-based and object-based IOR by using complex displays and displays that involved moving the cued object. The present study was designed to further examine the object- and location-based components of IOR in static displays. Three experiments were conducted that looked at the presence or absence of placeholder boxes on IOR. The first experiment was designed to replicate the results of Jordan and Tipper by presenting both objects and no-objects in the same display. In the second experiment, trials were blocked, and in the third experiment trials were presented in a random order. Overall, the results are inconsistent with the notion that independent object-based and location-based IOR components combine to produce the overall IOR effect and that additive effects are realized due to the context in which the trials are presented. We propose that a single inhibitory mechanism can account for the data.     

Object- and location-based inhibition of return in younger and older adults

When a cued object moves to new spatial coordinates, inhibition of return (IOR) with younger adults is found at the original cued location (location-based IOR) and at the current location of the object (object-based IOR). Older adults, however, show only location-based IOR. To determine whether this pattern of results represents a general age-related deficit in object-based IOR, the authors used static displays in which the placeholders (i.e., objects) were either present (location-based IOR+object-based IOR) or absent (location-based IOR only). Both age groups showed location-based IOR, but the older adults failed to show object-based IOR, consistent with age-related differences in visual pathways.     

Examining location-based and object-based components of inhibition of return in static displays

Tipper and Colleagues (e.g., Jordan & Tipper, 1998; Tipper, Driver, & Weaver, 1991; Tipper, Weaver, Jerreat, & Burak, 1994) have provided support for inhibition of return (IOR) being composed of a location-based and an object-based component. They were able to separate out the effects of locationbased and object-based IOR by using complex displays and displays that involved moving the cued object. The present study was designed to further examine the object- and location-based components of IOR in static displays. Three experiments were conducted that looked at the presence or absence of placeholder boxes on IOR. The first experiment was designed to replicate the results of Jordan and Tipper by presenting both objects and no-objects in the same display. In the second experiment, trials were blocked, and in the third experiment trials were presented in a random order. Overall, the results are inconsistent with the notion that independent object-based and location-based IOR components combine to produce the overall IOR effect and that additive effects are realized due to the context in which the trials are presented. We propose that a single inhibitory mechanism can account for the data.     

Scene-based and object-centered inhibition of return: evidence for dual orienting mechanisms

We investigated whether inhibition of return (IOR) could be observed in location-based, scene-based, and object-centered frames of reference. IOR was found to move both with a separate cued object (scene-based) and with a location within a single rotating object (object-centered). Importantly, however, IOR was also associated with the environmental location cued when cuing was of a separate object (scene-based), whereas facilitation of the cued location was found when cuing was of a component within an object. These results suggest that location is of central importance to scene-based representations of separate objects, which appear to be encoded in viewer-centered coordinates, whereas environmental locus is of little relevance when attention orients within a single object. The results also provide further evidence for the coexistence of both excitation and inhibition associated with uninformative exogenous cues.     

Age-related differences in object- and location-based inhibition of return of attention

Four experiments examined age-related differences in inhibition of return (IOR) of visual attention. Using static stimuli, both young and older adults were slower to detect targets in previously cued objects, showing equivalent IOR. With objects that moved after they had been cued, young adults were slower to detect targets in the cued object (compared with uncued ones), revealing object-based IOR, but older adults were faster to detect targets in such objects, failing to demonstrate object-based IOR. Both age groups were slower to detect targets at the initially cued location (location-based IOR). The results show that age has a differential effect on IOR depending on the frame of reference of the inhibition: Inhibition for objects breaks down with age, but that for location does not. This pattern of results is consistent with the view that there are specific inhibitory deficits in old age.     

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.     

Objects and their locations in exogenous cuing.

Anatomical, physiological, and behavioral studies provide support for separate object- and location-based components of visual attention. Although studies of object-based components have usually involved voluntary attention, more recent evidence has suggested that objects may play an independent role in reflexive exogenous orienting, at least at long stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). In the present experiments, the role of objects in reflexive attentional orienting was investigated by developing a task in which location and object cuing could be separately examined for both short and long SOAs. Typical location cuing effects were obtained, indicating facilitation at short cue-target intervals and inhibition of return (IOR) at longer intervals. In contrast, object cuing resulted in facilitation for cued objects at long cue-target intervals and no object-based IOR. Interestingly, object cuing primarily affected targets at cued locations, and not those at uncued locations. Together, the experiments examine the interactive nature of objects and locations in exogenous orienting and seem most consistent with a location-mediated view of object-based orienting.     

Attentional tracking and inhibition of return in dynamic displays

Seven experiments were conducted to replicate, and extend, a finding by Tipper, Driver, and Weaver (1991). They reported evidence for dynamic, object-centered inhibition of return (IOR)—that is, coding of inhibition following a peripheral cue in coordinates that move with the previously cued object, providing a dynamic bias against reattending to that object. The present experiments used a variation of Posner and Cohen’s (1984) spatial cuing paradigm. Subjects responded manually (simple reaction time) to a luminance increment in one of two peripheral boxes, one of which had previously been cued (brightened). Experiments 1, 2, and 5 replicated the standard (environmental) IOR effect when the display was stationary. IOR was more marked for right-side targets than for left-side targets and tended to be affected by the compatibility between response hand and (cued) target position. However, when the boxes moved around the display center (Experiments 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7), contrary to Tipper et al., there was no evidence of dynamic, object-centered IOR. Rather, there was strong evidence of attentive tracking of whatever box happened to move from left to right, irrespective of the direction of its motion (clockwise or counterclockwise) and whether it was more likely to contain the target than the other (right-to-left moving) box. There was a tendency for left-to-right tracking to be more marked with right-hand responses, pointing to the existence of a dynamic stimulus-response compatibility effect. The implications of the present findings for the role of attentive tracking and IOR in dynamic scenes are discussed.     

Oculomotor inhibition of return: Evidence against object-centered representation

ABSTRACT

Intermixing central, directional arrow targets with the peripheral targets typically used in the Posnerian spatial cueing paradigm offers a useful diagnostic for ascertaining the relative contributions of output and input processes to oculomotor inhibition of return (IOR). Here, we use this diagnostic to determine whether object-based oculomotor IOR comprises output and/or input processes. One of two placeholder objects in peripheral vision was cued, then both objects rotated smoothly either 90 or 180 degrees around the circumference of an imaginary circle. After this movement, a saccade was made to the location marked by a peripheral onset target or indicated by the central arrow. In our first three experiments, whereas there was evidence for IOR when measured by central arrow or peripheral onset targets at cued locations, there was little trace of IOR at the cued object. We thereafter precisely replicated the seminal experiment for object-based oculomotor IOR (Abrams, R. A., & Dobkin, R. S. (1994). Inhibition of return: Effects of attentional cuing on eye movement latencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(3), 467–477; Experiment 4) but again found little evidence of an object-based IOR effect. Finally, we ran a paradigm with only peripheral targets and with motion and stationary trials randomly intermixed. Here we again showed IOR at the cued location but not at the cued object. Together, the findings suggest that object-based representation of oculomotor IOR is much more tenuous than implied by the literature.     

Inhibition of return in static and dynamic displays

Inhibition of return (IOR) causes people to be slower to return their attention to a recently attended object (object-based IOR) or location (location-based IOR). In attempts to separately measure the two components, moving stimuli have been used that permit the dissociation of the attended object from its location when it was attended. The implicit assumption has been that both object- and locationbased components of IOR will operate whenever the cued object and cued location are identical. We show here that although this assumption may be true in a static display, it appears to be unwarranted when moving stimuli are involved: Very little IOR is observed when a cued object moves away from, and then subsequently returns to, its initial location. Thus, the processes that underlie IOR operate very differently in static versus dynamic scenes.     

The role of affordances in inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) is a response delay that occurs when the target is preceded by an irrelevant stimulus (cue) at the same location. IOR can be object based, as well as location based. The aim of the present study was to investigate the role of the pragmatic features of a visually presented object in causing IOR. Two experiments were carried out using different objects as stimuli, for which the graspable part (affordance) was clearly defined. The presentation of a whole object, with the part commonly used to grasp it located below, served as a cue. The presentation of either the graspable or the ungraspable part of the cued or uncued object served as the target Results showed that responses were slower when the graspable part was shown in the cued location than when the ungraspable part was shown in the same location. The effect was apparently linked to the kind of action necessary to grasp an object.     

动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制 ——是客体抑制还是空间抑制的动态更新？

对动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制进行了考察。实验1在双侧客体改变和不改变条件下考察了返回抑制效应,结果表明,在双侧客体改变条件下返回抑制仍然存在。实验2采用单侧客体变化技术对动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制进行了测量,结果发现,在有效线索化条件下,单侧客体改变和不改变条件下对靶子的反应时没有显著差异（p > 0.90）。这些结果表明动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制的机制是空间抑制的动态更新,而不是客体表征受到抑制     

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.     

Objects do not aid inhibition of return in crossing the vertical meridian

Location-based cuing experiments have shown that inhibition of return (IOR) spreads beyond a cued location but appears to be confined to the cued hemifield by the vertical meridian. Previous studies have also shown that IOR can spread across objects and here we investigate whether an object can be used to mediate the spreading of IOR into the opposite hemifield. Two experiments used a rectangular object that surrounded four target locations, two to the left and right of a central fixation point. The spreading of IOR in the presence of the object was determined and compared with a condition where the object-frame was absent. Object-present and object-absent trials were either mixed within a block (Experiment 1) or divided into separate blocks (Experiment 2). Both experiments revealed robust inhibition in the cued but not the uncued hemifield, further demonstrating the hemifield-based spreading of IOR.     

Location- and object-based inhibition of return are affected by different kinds of working memory

Castel, Pratt, and Craik (2003) have shown that inhibition of return (IOR, the delayed response to a recently cued item) is disrupted by a secondary task that involves spatial working memory (WM), and they suggest that IOR is mediated by spatial WM. However, they did not specify what kind of IOR was involved. We used a dual-task paradigm to examine whether the two kinds of IOR (location- and object-based IOR) are affected by two kinds of secondary task that involve spatial and nonspatial WM, respectively. The results show that location-based IOR was disrupted by a spatial secondary task while the object-based IOR was disrupted by a nonspatial secondary task. The present study further elaborates the conclusion of Castel et al. (2003) by differentiating the effect of the two kinds of WM (spatial vs. nonspatial) on the two kinds of IOR (location based vs. object based).     

Location- and object-based inhibition of return are affected by different kinds of working memory

Castel, Pratt, and Craik (2003) have shown that inhibition of return (IOR, the delayed response to a recently cued item) is disrupted by a secondary task that involves spatial working memory (WM), and they suggest that IOR is mediated by spatial WM. However, they did not specify what kind of IOR was involved. We used a dual-task paradigm to examine whether the two kinds of IOR (location- and object-based IOR) are affected by two kinds of secondary task that involve spatial and nonspatial WM, respectively. The results show that location-based IOR was disrupted by a spatial secondary task while the object-based IOR was disrupted by a nonspatial secondary task. The present study further elaborates the conclusion of Castel et al. (2003) by differentiating the effect of the two kinds of WM (spatial vs. nonspatial) on the two kinds of IOR (location based vs. object based).     

Attending to objects: Endogenous cues can produce inhibition of return

Inhibition of Return (IOR) is effective in a wide range of experimental settings but has proven elusive under conditions of volitional (endogenous) attentional control. This result may be due to a continuing attentional bias towards the cued location. Here we ask whether IOR can be unmasked under endogenous cueing conditions when a predictive cue prevents such a bias. In Experiment 1, a central arrow directed attention endogenously to one end of a rectangular object. Attention initially radiated to an unpredicted location in the object but IOR later impaired target detection at that location. In Experiment 2, attention was directed endogenously to a dynamic object. While target detection was facilitated at a subsequent (and predicted) location of the rotating object, detection-latencies at its original location were slowed. Together the results show that it is possible to produce IOR using endogenous cues.     

Onset but not offset of irrelevant motion disrupts inhibition of return

In seven experiments, subjects were slower to detect targets in cued static objects than in uncued static objects, revealing inhibition of return (IOR). This occurred regardless of the presence or absence of continuous motion of other, task-irrelevant objects in the display. However, if the motion of the irrelevant objects began during the interval between cue and target, the amount of IOR was considerably reduced. Offset of motion during the cue-target interval had no effect. Implications for IOR, object perception, and attentional capture are discussed.     

Objects and their locations in exogenous cuing

Anatomical, physiological, and behavioral studies provide support for separate object- and locationbased components of visual attention. Although studies of object-based components have usually involved voluntary attention, more recent evidence has suggested that objects may play an independent role in reflexiveexogenous orienting, at least at long stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). In the present experiments, the role of objects in reflexive attentional orienting was investigated by developing a task in which location and object cuing could be separately examined for both short and long SOAs. Typical location cuing effects were obtained, indicating facilitation at short cue—target intervals and inhibition of return (IOR) at longer intervals. In contrast, object cuing resulted in facilitation for cued objects at long cue—target intervals and no object-based IOR. Interestingly, object cuing primarily affected targets at cued locations, and not those at uncued locations. Together, the experiments examine the interactive nature of objects and locations in exogenous orienting and seem most consistent with a location-mediated view of object-based orienting.     

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。