Disentangling perceptual and motor components in inhibition of return

Following an abrupt onset of a peripheral stimulus (a cue), the response to a visual target is faster when the target appears at the cued position than when it appears at other positions. However, if the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) is longer than approximately 300 ms, the response to the target is slower at the cued position than that at other positions. This phenomenon of a longer response time to cued targets is called "inhibition of return" (IOR). Previous hypotheses propose contributions of both response inhibition and attentional inhibition at cued position to IOR, and suggest that responding to the cue can eliminate the component of response inhibition. The current study uses tasks either executing or withholding response to the cue to investigate the relative contributions of response and attention components to IOR. A condition with bilateral display of the cue is also chosen as a control condition, and eight different SOAs between 1,000 and 2,750 ms are tested. Compared to the control condition, response delay to the target at a cued position is eliminated by responding to the cue, and a response advantage to the target at an uncued position is not affected by responding to the cue. Furthermore, both response delay at a cued position and response advantage at an uncued position decrease with SOA in the time window tested in these experiments. The results reported here indicate a dominant response inhibition at a cued position and a primary attentional allocation at an uncued position for IOR. Nonsignificant perceptual/attentional suppression at a cued position is argued to be a benefit for visual detection in a changing world.     

返回抑制时程的三因素理论及其发展

综述了返回抑制(Inhibition of return,IOR)出现时程机制的三因素理论内容,支持该理论的实验证据,以及对理论的质疑和发展。该理论认为空间定向收益、出现检测缺失和空间选择收益三个因素共同决定了IOR出现的时程及机制。研究者通过操控任务加工水平或将实验范式相结合的方式对三因素理论提出了质疑和发展。许多关键问题如三个因素存在的认知神经科学证据、出现检测缺失和空间选择收益发挥作用的方式等是未来研究的重点和方向。     

Inhibition of return is composed of attentional and oculomotor processes

Response time can be delayed if a target stimulus appears at a location or object that was previously cued. This inhibition of return (IOR) phenomenon has been attributed to a delay in activating attentional or motor processes to a previously cued stimulus. Two experiments required subjects to localize or identify a target stimulus. In Experiment 1, the subjects’ eyes were not monitored. In Experiment 2, the subjects’ eyes were monitored, and the subjects were instructed to either execute or withhold an eye movement to a target stimulus. The results indicated that IOR was always present for location and identification responses, supporting an attentional account of IOR. However, IOR was larger when eye movements were executed, indicating that a motor component can contribute to IOR. Finally, when eye movements were withheld, IOR was larger when a target was presented alone than when it was presented with a distractor, suggesting that IOR is larger for exogenous than for endogenous covert orienting. Together, the data indicate that IOR is composed of both an oculomotor component and an attentional component.     

Inhibition of return is composed of attentional and oculomotor processes.

Response time can be delayed if a target stimulus appears at a location or object that was previously cued. This inhibition of return (IOR) phenomenon has been attributed to a delay in activating attentional or motor processes to a previously cued stimulus. Two experiments required subjects to localize or identify a target stimulus. In Experiment 1, the subjects' eyes were not monitored. In Experiment 2, the subjects' eyes were monitored, and the subjects were instructed to either execute or withhold an eye movement to a target stimulus. The results indicated that IOR was always present for location and identification responses, supporting an attentional account of IOR. However, IOR was larger when eye movements were executed, indicating that a motor component can contribute to IOR. Finally, when eye movements were withheld, IOR was larger when a target was presented alone than when it was presented with a distractor, suggesting that IOR is larger for exogenous than for endogenous covert orienting. Together, the data indicate that IOR is composed of both an oculomotor component and an attentional component.     

Long-term facilitation of return: A response-retrieval effect

The present study used a target–target procedure to examine the extent to which perceptual and response factors contribute to inhibition of return (IOR) in a visual discrimination task. When the target was perceptually identical to the previous target and the required response was the same, facilitation was observed for both standard and long-term target–target stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). When the color of the previous target differed from that of the current target but the response remained the same, facilitation was reduced in both the standard SOA and long-term SOA conditions. Finally, IOR was observed for both standard and long-term SOAs only in the condition in which there was a change in response. This pattern of inhibition and facilitation provides new evidence that the responses previously associated with a location play an important role in the ability to respond to a stimulus. We interpret this finding as consistent with a framework in which the involuntary retrieval of bound stimulus–response episodes contributes to response compatibility effects in visual stimulus discrimination.     

Auditory and audiovisual inhibition of return

Two experiments examined any inhibition-of-return (IOR) effects from auditory cues and from preceding auditory targets upon reaction times (RTs) for detecting subsequent auditory targets. Auditory RT was delayed if the preceding auditory cue was on the same side as the target, but was unaffected by the location of the auditorytarget from the preceding trial, suggesting that response inhibition for the cue may have produced its effects. By contrast, visual detection RT was inhibited by the ipsilateral presentation of a visual target on the preceding trial. In a third experiment, targets could be unpredictably auditory or visual, and no peripheral cues intervened. Both auditory and visual detection RTs were now delayed following an ipsilateral versus contralateral target in either modality on the preceding trial, even when eye position was monitored to ensure central fixation throughout. These data suggest that auditory target—target IOR arises only when target modality is unpredictable. They also provide the first unequivocal evidence for cross-modal IOR, since, unlike other recent studies (e.g., Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996; Tassinari & Berlucchi, 1995; Tassinari & Campara, 1996), the present cross-modal effects cannot be explained in terms of response inhibition for the cue. The results are discussed in relation to neurophysiological studies and audiovisual links in saccade programming.     

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.     

听觉障碍人群检测任务基于位置的返回抑制

基于位置的返回抑制（IOR）是指对先前注意过的位置上靶子反应变慢的现象。探讨听觉障碍被试检测任务IOR的时程和量是否受听觉剥夺的影响。实验1中,听觉障碍被试和听力正常组被试具有相同的IOR时程和量;但在取消中央线索化的实验2中,当SOA为350ms时,听力正常被试没有出现IOR,听觉障碍被试出现了IOR,说明听觉障碍被试的注意脱离快于听力正常被试。听觉障碍被试对外周靶子的反应快于听力正常被试,表明听障人群外周注意资源增强。这些结果表明听觉障碍被试的空间注意更具有效性和策略性。     

Larger IOR effects following forget than following remember instructions depend on exogenous attentional withdrawal and target localization

When words are onset in the visual periphery, inhibition of return (IOR) for a subsequent target is larger when those words receive an intervening forget instruction than when they receive a remember instruction Taylor (Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 613-629, 2005). The present study manipulated the allocation of endogenous and exogenous attention to assess the source of the forget > remember IOR difference. We determined that the forget > remember IOR difference likely arises from the differential withdrawal of exogenous-rather than endogenous-attention. Furthermore, this forget > remember IOR difference occurs only when a spatially compatible localization response is required; it does not occur when a simple detection response or a perceptual discrimination is required. This suggests that the forget > remember difference in the magnitude of IOR is not due to differences in perceptual/attentional processing. Instead, an instruction to remember or forget biases spatial responses in accordance with whether a location has previously contained relevant or irrelevant information. We suggest that directed forgetting in an item-method paradigm is not accomplished by changes in attention; rather, the changes in attention are coincident with changes in memory and may serve to bias later responses away from a source of unreliable information.     

Faces capture attention: Evidence from inhibition of return

The human face is a visual pattern of great social and biological importance. While previous studies have shown that attention may be preferentially directed and engaged longer by faces, the current study presents a new methodology to test the notion that faces can capture attention. The present study uses the occurrence of inhibition of return (IOR) as a diagnostic tool to determine the allocation of attention in visual space. Because previous research suggested that IOR at a location in space only occurs after attention has been reflexively moved to that location, the current finding of IOR at the location of the face provides converging support for the claim that faces do have the ability to summon attention.     

The role of the fixation location in inhibition of return.

Experiments that have examined inhibition of return (IOR) have typically used trial sequences in which attention is reoriented to a central fixation location between the presentation of the peripheral cue(s) and the target. In examining the role of the fixation location in IOR, three experiments were conducted in which an exogenous cue was used to reorient attention following a peripheral cue and before the appearance of a target. However, this cue occurred at either the traditional central fixation location or a nonfixated location. The results indicate that reorienting attention to a fixated location results in a significant reduction in the inhibitory effect. The results from the study suggest that IOR could serve as a mechanism that improves the efficiency of visual searches.     

Inhibition of return and object-based attentional selection

Visual attention research has revealed that attentional allocation can occur in space- and/or object-based coordinates. Using the direct and elegant design of R. Egly, J. Driver, and R. Rafal (1994), the present experiments tested whether space- and object-based inhibition of return (IOR) emerge under similar time courses. The experiments were capable of isolating both space- and object-based effects induced by peripheral and back-to-center cues. The results generally support the contention that spatially nonpredictive cues are effective in producing space-based IOR at a variety of stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) and under a variety of stimulus conditions. Whether facilitatory or inhibitory in direction, the object-based effects occurred over a very different time course than did the space-based effects. Reliable object-based IOR was only found under limited conditions and was tied to the time since the most recent cue (peripheral or central). The finding that object-based effects are generally determined by SOA from the most recent cue may help to resolve discrepancies in the IOR literature. These findings also have implications for the search facilitator role that IOR is purported to play in the guidance of visual attention.     

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.     

Two spatially separated attention systems in the visual field: evidence from inhibition of return

It has been demonstrated that the human visual field shows some functional inhomogeneities, in particular when the central and perifoveal regions are compared to the more peripheral regions. The present study examined this inhomogeneity by examining the effect of stimulus eccentricity on inhibition of return (IOR), a phenomenon that biases our attention towards novel locations against returning it back to previously attended locations. Eighteen subjects were examined in a visual detection task, in which a target appeared randomly following a nonpredictive spatial cue in the visual field. The eccentricities of the cues and targets were systematically manipulated from 5° to 30° with 5° increments. Results showed that response times to targets that appeared at cued locations were significantly slower than those at uncued locations for all stimulus eccentricities, demonstrating the IOR effects. However, response times at cued locations increased significantly when stimulus eccentricity shifted from 15° to 20°, leading to a much stronger IOR effect at more peripheral regions compared to central and perifoveal regions, indicating a functional dissociation between these two regions of the visual field. Possible neural mechanisms underlying this dissociation are discussed, and two attention systems modulating the two functional regions of the visual field are put forward to best account the present finding implicating in particular midbrain mechanism.     

Long-term inhibition of return for spatial locations: evidence for a memory retrieval account

It has generally been accepted that attention is inhibited from returning to previously attended locations, and that this inhibition of return (IOR) lasts just two or three seconds. Recently, Tipper, Grison, and Kessler (2003) showed that IOR can occur over much longer periods of time provided the inhibition is encoded with a context-rich event. Here we examine standard (i.e., typical time range) and long-term IOR within the same experimental paradigm as a means to compare their properties. Experiment 1 used the simple displays typical of cueing paradigms and revealed that both standard and long-term IOR can be obtained under such conditions. Experiment 2 showed that both standard and long-term IOR occurred when there was incongruence between the required response on the current trial and that stored in memory. Furthermore, IOR was not produced when there was incongruence between a target feature (colour) of the current trial and that stored in memory. These results are consistent with a memory retrieval account of IOR and suggest that the same inhibitory mechanism may underlie both standard and long-term IOR.     

Long-term inhibition of return for spatial locations: Evidence for a memory retrieval account

It has generally been accepted that attention is inhibited from returning to previously attended locations, and that this inhibition of return (IOR) lasts just two or three seconds. Recently, Tipper, Grison, and Kessler (2003) showed that IOR can occur over much longer periods of time provided the inhibition is encoded with a context-rich event. Here we examine standard (i.e., typical time range) and long-term IOR within the same experimental paradigm as a means to compare their properties. Experiment 1 used the simple displays typical of cueing paradigms and revealed that both standard and long-term IOR can be obtained under such conditions. Experiment 2 showed that both standard and long-term IOR occurred when there was incongruence between the required response on the current trial and that stored in memory. Furthermore, IOR was not produced when there was incongruence between a target feature (colour) of the current trial and that stored in memory. These results are consistent with a memory retrieval account of IOR and suggest that the same inhibitory mechanism may underlie both standard and long-term IOR.     

The role of attentional set on attentional cueing and inhibition of return

When people know what critical feature will define a target for a block of trials, only cues that share a critical feature with targets will capture attention. This result is taken to mean that attentional control settings play a role in target identification. To examine the validity of the attentional control settings hypothesis while controlling for potential sensory artifacts, the first experiment compared conditions in which the critical target features were either blocked or randomized. The results indicated that all cues captured attention in the random conditions, but only cues that matched targets captured attention in the attentional set condition. The second experiment used the same two conditions to examine the effect of attentional set on inhibition of return (IOR). No differences were found between the blocked and random conditions, indicating that attentional set did not impact the IOR effects. Overall, the results indicate that (1) the previous findings of attentional set effects were not due to an artifact of the method, and (2) attentional set influences and early occurring attentional cueing effects but not later-occurring IOR effects.     

Does IOR occur in discrimination tasks? Yes, it does, but later

When a stimulus appears in a previously cued location several hundred milliseconds after the cue, the time required to detect that stimulus is greater than when it appears in an uncued location. This increase in detection time is known as inhibition of return (IOR). It has been suggested that IOR reflects the action of a general attentional mechanism that prevents attention from returning to previously explored loci. At the same time, the robustness of IOR has been recently disputed, given several failures to obtain the effect in tasks requiring discrimination rather than detection. In a series of eight experiments, we evaluated the differences between detection and discrimination tasks with regard to IOR. We found that IOR was consistently obtained with both tasks, although the temporal parameters required to observe IOR were different in detection and discrimination tasks. In our detection task, the effect appeared after a 400-msec delay between cue and target, and was still present after 1,300 msec. In our discrimination task, the effect appeared later and disappeared sooner. The implications of these data for theoretical accounts of IOR are discussed.     

Investigating the parameters of transsaccadic memory: inhibition of return impedes information acquisition near a saccade target

A limited amount of visual information is retained between saccades, which is subsequently stored into a memory system, such as transsaccadic memory. Since the capacity of transsaccadic memory is limited, selection of information is crucial. Selection of relevant information is modulated by attentional processes such as the presaccadic shift of attention. This involuntary shift of attention occurs prior to execution of the saccade and leads to information acquisition at an intended saccade target. The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence that another attentional effect, inhibition of return (IOR), has on the information that gets stored into transsaccadic memory. IOR is the phenomenon where participants are slower to respond to a cue at a previously attended location. To this end, we used a transsaccadic memory paradigm in which stimuli, oriented on a horizontal axis relative to saccade direction, are only visible to the participant before executing a saccade. Previous research showed that items in close proximity to a saccade target are likely to be reported more accurately. In our current study, participants were cued to fixate one of the stimulus locations and subsequently refixated the centre fixation point before executing the transsaccadic memory task. Results indicate that information at a location near a saccade landing point is less likely to be acquired into transsaccadic memory when this location was previously associated with IOR. Furthermore, we found evidence which implicates a reduction of the overall amount of elements retained in transsaccadic memory when a location near a saccade target is associated with IOR. These results suggest that the presaccadic shift of attention may be modulated by IOR and thereby reduces information acquisition by transsaccadic memory.     

Timing of facilitatory and inhibitory effects of visual attention

Three experiments were conducted to investigate influences on the precue-to-target delay at which response facilitation is first replaced by inhibition of return (IOR). In Experiment 1, different ranges of delays were used; the interpolated delay at which faster RTs for matching precue and target locations changed to slower RTs was inversely related to the length of the range of precue-to-target delays within a block of trials. These findings were replicated in Experiment 2, which additionally showed that task difficulty provided an insufficient explanation for the delay in the changeover time. These data allowed the conclusion that a shorter range of precue-to-target delays results in later onset of IOR than does a longer range of delays. The data from Experiment 3 suggested that a single character on the target screen confounds the interpretation of possible facilitation and/or inhibition due to the allocation of attention. These results were related to other reported findings and to theories of attention allocation.