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When attention is drawn to a location and then withdrawn, responding to a stimulus at that location may be slower than to one at a new location.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.     

Inhibition of return in a discrimination task

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to a bias against returning visual attention to a location that has been recently attended. Although IOR has been demonstrated in a wide range of detection tasks, it has not been reliably shown in discrimination tasks. The results of the present experiment, in which eye movement responses and a cue-target procedure were used, indicate that IOR can exist in a discrimination task. Moreover, the results indicate that the amount of IOR in the discrimination task was approximately equal to that found in the detection task. The results suggest that IOR will be obtained in a discrimination task if the prior allocation of attention does not yield any useful information concerning the forthcoming discrimination judgment.     

Inhibition of return in location- and identity-based choice decision tasks

Three experiments were conducted to determine whether inhibition of return can be best characterized as an attentional or a motor phenomenon. In the first experiment, subjects made choice key-press responses to the location of a target (left or right) or the identity of the target (X or +) by pressing a left or right response key. In the second experiment, the display was rotated 90° so that there was no direct spatial mapping between the vertically aligned stimulus display and the horizontally aligned response keys. In both experiments, inhibition of return was observed for location-based and identity-based choice responses, although more inhibition was seen in the identity-based responses. The results of the third experiment suggested that this larger inhibitory effect may be specific to the covert orienting of reflexive attention in response to the sudden appearance of a single peripheral stimulus in the identity tasks. Overall, the results are consistent with the attentional, not the motor, explanation of inhibition of return.     

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.     

Sequential effects in rudimentary auditory and visual tasks

Three experiments examined sequential effects in choice reaction time tasks. On each trial, a right/left positional judgment was made to a either a pure tone or a luminance increment in a visual array of box elements. In the first two experiments, a preparatory signal was presented prior to each imperative signal to indicate the relevant stimulus modality. At a short stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between the preparatory and the imperative signal (i.e., 60 msec), subjects were quicker to repeat the same response than to change their response when presented with successive tones, although no such repetition effect occurred on the visual target trials. Subjects were impaired if the stimulus modality changed across successive trials regardless of the modality of the target. At a longer SOA (i.e., 500 msec), these sequential effects were abolished; subjects were assumed to be able to prepare for the relevant modality because of the presentation of the preparatory signal. When the preparatory signals were omitted, in a final experiment, the modality-switching costs were still evident, but now inhibition of return occurred on both the auditory and the visual target trials-subjects were now impaired in responding when the target reappeared at its immediately previous location. It seems, therefore, that the repetition effect and modality-switching effects do dissociate. The data revealed clear differences between orienting attention to a particular spatial locale and focusing attention to a particular sensory modality.     

Bottom-up effects modulate saccadic latencies in well-known eye movement paradigm

A well-known eye movement paradigm combines saccades (fast eye movements) with a perceptual discrimination task. At a variable time after the onset of a central arrow cue indicating the target direction [the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA)], discrimination symbols appear briefly at saccade target and non-target locations. A previous study revealed an unexpected effect of SOA on saccadic latencies: latencies were longer in trials with longer SOAs. It was suggested that this effect reflects a top-down process as observers may wait for the discrimination symbol to appear before executing saccades. However, symbol onsets may also modulate saccade latencies from the bottom-up. To clarify the origin of the SOA effect on latencies in this paradigm, we used a simplified version of the original task plus two new symbol onset conditions for comparison. The results indicate that the modulation of saccadic latencies was not due to a top-down strategy, but to a combination of two opposing bottom-up effects: the symbol onsets at the target location shortened saccade latencies, while symbol onsets at non-target locations lengthened saccade latencies.     

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 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.     

The effects of unilateral pulvinar damage in humans on reflexive orienting and filtering of irrelevant information

The effects of damage to the pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus in humans on reflexive orienting and selective attention were investigated. In a spatial orienting task three patients with unilateral pulvinar damage determined the location of a visual target that followed a cue that was not informative as to the targets location. Contralesional targets were responded to more slowly than ipsilesional targets. Also, at long cue target intervals patients responses to contralesional targets that appeared at previously cued locations were slower than to non-cued locations indicating that pulvinar damage does not affect inhibition of return. In the selective attention task two of the patients identified a target that appeared at one level of a global-local hierarchical stimulus while ignoring a distractor present at the other level. The distractor indicated either the same response as the target or a different response. Response times to targets in both visual fields were similar as were interference effects from the ignored distractors. These data indicate that engaging attention contralesionally is not impaired in discrimination tasks and that filtering of irrelevant information was not impaired contralesionally.     

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.     

Oculocentric coding of inhibited eye movements to recently attended locations

Results are reported for experiments that examined eye movements directed toward recently cued objects. In 1 experiment participants were slower to initiate saccades toward the earlier location of an object that had been cued, even though the cued object had subsequently moved away from that location. Other experiments involved exploring the reference frame within which the inhibited eye movements are encoded. These experiments revealed that the eye movement that is inhibited is encoded in an oculocentric-rather than an environmental-reference frame. However, simple detection as indexed by manual keypress responses is encoded in an environmental reference frame. The results have implications for inhibition of return, for the link between eye movements and attention, and for the nature of the spatial reference frames in which both covert and overt movements of attention are encoded.     

Inhibition of return and the attentional set for integrating versus differentiating information.

Cuing a location with an uninformative cue leads to a facilitatory effect at that location shortly afterward and later (about 300 ms) to a negative effect called inhibition of return (IOR). Until recently, it was argued that IOR occurs in detection and localization tasks, but not in discrimination tasks. However, the authors of several recent studies have demonstrated IOR effects in discrimination tasks, although at a later cue-to-target stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). In this study, the authors examined why IOR occurs at a later SOA in discrimination tasks. In Experiments 1 and 2, different time courses of exogenous cuing effects in detection and discrimination tasks were established. In Experiment 3, the authors examined the role of an attentional set on the time course of exogenous cuing effects by manipulating the proportion of trials in which a distractor is presented in the location opposite the target. A new framework for understanding exogenous cuing effects and their dependence on endogenous attention is proposed.     

Stimulus-response compatibility between stimulated eye and response location: implications for attentional accounts of the Simon effect

One influential theory of the Simon effect, the attention-shift hypothesis, states that attention movements are the origin of spatial stimulus codes. According to this hypothesis, stimulus-response compatibility effects should be absent when attention shifts are prevented. To test this prediction, we used monocular patches of color that required left or right key-press responses. About half of the subjects could discriminate which eye was stimulated (in a subsequent task), and showed strong spatial compatibility effects between the stimulated eye and the response location. The other half of the subjects could not make a utrocular discrimination (i.e., they could not judge which eye had received monocular stimulation), but the pattern of results was the same: the fastest reaction times were observed when the stimulated eye corresponded spatially to the required response (i.e., a Simon effect). Since the subjects presumably did not move their attention (from the subject's point of view, the stimuli were presented centrally), our results indicate that spatial codes can be produced in the absence of attention shifts. These results also show that utrocular discrimination can be assessed via indirect measures that are much more sensitive than explicit measures.     

Temporal expectancy modulates inhibition of return in a discrimination task

This research examined the influence of cue temporal predictability on inhibition of return (IOR) in a discrimination task. In exogenous attention experiments, the cue that summons attention is noninformative as to where the target will appear. However, it is predictive as to when it will appear. In previous work, it was demonstrated that temporal predictability does not influence IOR in detection tasks. In this work, it is shown that IOR is influenced by temporal predictability in discrimination tasks. Predictability was manipulated by using three stimulus onset asynchrony distributions: nonaging, aging, and accelerated aging. IOR was found when the cue predicted target appearance and was modulated by temporal information. In the nonaging distribution (in which the cue did not predict target appearance), there was no IOR.     

Effects of saccades and response type on the Simon effect: If you look at the stimulus,the Simon effect may be gone

The Simon effect has most often been investigated with key-press responses and eye fixation. In the present study, we asked how the type of eye movement and the type of manual response affect response selection in a Simon task. We investigated three eye movement instructions (spontaneous, saccade, and fixation) while participants performed goal-directed (i.e., reaching) or symbolic (i.e., finger-lift) responses. Initially, no oculomotor constraints were imposed, and a Simon effect was present for both response types. Next, eye movements were constrained. Participants had to either make a saccade toward the stimulus or maintain gaze fixed in the screen centre. While a congruency effect was always observed in reaching responses, it disappeared in finger-lift responses. We suggest that the redirection of saccades from the stimulus to the correct response location in noncorresponding trials contributes to the Simon effect. Because of eye–hand coupling, this occurred in a mandatory manner with reaching responses but not with finger-lift responses. Thus, the Simon effect with key-presses disappears when participants do what they typically do—look at the stimulus.     

The Effect of Inhibition of Return on Lexical Access

Abstract—Inhibition of return refers to a bias against returning attention to a location or object that has been recently attended. Recent research has shown that inhibition of return can be found not only in simple detection tasks, but also in tasks requiring relatively simple discrimination judgments. The present experiments examined whether inhibition of return occurs in tasks that require complex discriminations such as lexical decision and categorization tasks. Not only was inhibition of return found in both experiments, but a greater amount of inhibition was found for low-frequency words than for high-frequency words. These findings suggest that inhibition of return not only inhibits returning attention to previously attended locations, but can also affect the processing that is required for lexical access.     

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.     

Color-based inhibition of return

The inhibition of return of visual attention based on stimulus color was examined in three experiments. In the first experiment, a discrete trial paradigm showed that subjects were slower to detect a color patch if the color matched that of a patch presented earlier in the same location. Experiment 2 showed that the inhibition only occurs if a neutral, nontarget distractor color is presented between presentation of the initial color cue and the subsequent target patch—explaining the previous failures to detect the phenomenon. Experiment 3 extended the results to a different combination of colors. Taken together, the results have important implications for the processing of stimulus attributes such as spatial location and color, and for the conditions necessary for producing inhibition of return.     

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.