Unraveling the race paradox of achievement and self-views

Considerable evidence indicates that African American students achieve less academically than European American students. Yet, African American students hold more positive self-views than their European American counterparts. Previous studies that address these seemingly paradoxical findings focus on students in a relatively narrow age range and/or convenience samples. Therefore, the current study examines two common explanations for these seemingly paradoxical findings, among a large and diverse sample of African American and European American students (N = 1, 493) from elementary to post-secondary school and across the socioeconomic spectrum. Results indicate that among a diverse group of students and conceptualized in two different ways, African American students do not devalue academics. However, African American students are more likely than European American students to discount academic feedback.     

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 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 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.     

Fruitful visual search: Inhibition of return in a virtual foraging task

Inhibition of return (IOR) has long been viewed as a foraging facilitator in visual search. We investigated the contribution of IOR in a task that approximates natural foraging more closely than typical visual search tasks. Participants in a fully immersive virtual reality environment manually searched an array of leaves for a hidden piece of fruit, using a wand to select and examine each leaf location. Search was slower than in typical IOR paradigms, taking seconds instead of a few hundred milliseconds. Participants also made a speeded response when they detected a flashing leaf that either was or was not in a previously searched location. Responses were slower when the flashing leaf was in a previously searched location than when it was in an unvisited location. These results generalize IOR to an approximation of a naturalistic visual search setting and support the hypothesis that IOR can facilitate foraging. The experiment also constitutes the first use of a fully immersive virtual reality display in the study of IOR.     

Inhibition of return: Dissociating attentional and oculomotor components

Inhibition of return (IOR) describes a performance decrement for stimuli appearing at recently cued locations. Both attentional and motor processes have been implicated in the IOR effect. The present data reveal a double dissociation between the attentional and motor components of IOR whereby the motor-based component of IOR is present when the response is oculomotor, and the attention-based component of IOR is present when the response is manual. These 2 distinct components should be considered and studied separately, as well as in relation to each other, if a comprehensive theory of IOR is to be achieved. ((c) 2003 APA, all rights reserved)     

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 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 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 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.     

Inhibition of return and attentional control settings

In the present study, we used a spatial cuing paradigm in conjunction with a choice identification task to investigate whether exogenous attentional orienting and inhibition of return are affected by attentional control settings. As in previous studies (e.g., Folk, Remington, & Johnston, 1992), onset- and color-defined targets were crossed with uninformative onset- and color-defined cues. As expected, when the cue-target stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) was short (i.e., 100 msec), the results showed that exogenous attentional orienting was contingent on attentional set; attentional capture occurred in response to a particular cue only when the feature that defined the cue also defined the target (Folk et al., 1992). More importantly, when the cue-target SOA was long (i.e., 1,000 msec), the results showed that the occurrence of inhibition of return was also contingent on attentional set, at least partially so; inhibition of return occurred in response to onset cues only when they preceded onset targets. In contrast, inhibition of return never occurred in response to color cues (at a variety of long SOAs). The associations and dissociations that were observed between exogenous attentional orienting and inhibition of return are discussed in terms of posterior and anterior attention networks in the brain (Posner & Petersen, 1990).     

Inhibition of return from stimulus to response

In a standard inhibition-of-return (IOR) paradigm using a manual key-press response, we examined the effect of IOR both on the amplitude of early sensory event-related brain potential (ERP) components and on the motor-related lateralized readiness potential (LRP). IOR was associated with a delay of premotor processes (target-locked LRP latency) and reduced sensory ERP activity. No effect of IOR was found on motor processes (response-locked LRP latency). Thus, IOR must arise at least in part from changes in perceptual processes, and, at least when measured with manual key presses, IOR does not arise from inhibition of motor processes. These results are consistent with the results of attention-orienting studies and provide support for an inhibition-of-attention explanation for IOR.     

Inhibition of return in perception and action

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the delay in responses to previously cued locations. Whether IOR influences perceptual and/or motor processes has been controversial. To determine IOR effects on perception and action, this study examined IOR in spatially directed hand reaching (Experiment 1) and spatial localization of targets with a mouse cursor (i.e., an indirect visuomotor mapping/perceptual task; Experiment 2). The reaction times showed delayed responses for targets appearing within the whole cued hemifield for both tasks. However, hypometric spatial biases were consistently found only with directed reaching. Spatial biases in the mouse localization task were indirectly influenced by IOR and distinct from those in the reaching task. The dissociation in spatial characteristics for directed reaching vs. perception suggests that the effects of IOR are task dependent, but may be more directly linked to the dorsal motor system.     

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 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.