Inhibition of return is at the midpoint of simultaneous cues

When multiple cues are presented simultaneously, Klein, Christie, and Morris (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12:295–300, 2005) found a gradient of inhibition (of return, IOR), with the slowest simple manual detection responses occurring to targets in the direction of the center of gravity of the cues. Here, we explored the possibility of extending this finding to the saccade response modality, using methods of data analysis that allowed us to consider the relative contributions of the distance from the target to the center of gravity of the array of cues and the nearest element in the cue array. We discovered that the bulk of the IOR effect with multiple cues, in both the previous and present studies, can be explained by the distance between the target and the center of gravity of the cue array. The present results are consistent with the proposal advanced by Klein et al., (2005) suggesting that this IOR effect is due to population coding in the oculomotor pathways (e.g., the superior colliculus) driving the eye movement system toward the center of gravity of the cued array.     

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.     

Spatiotemporal distribution of facilitation and inhibition of return arising from the reflexive orienting of covert attention

Currently, there is debate regarding both the spatial and temporal relationship between facilitation and inhibition of return (IOR) components of attention, as observed on the covert orienting of visual attention task (COVAT). These issues were addressed in a series of experiments where the spatial and temporal relationships between cue and target were manipulated. Facilitation occurred only when the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) was short and there was temporal overlap between cue and target. IOR occurred only when SOA was long and there was no temporal overlap between cue and target. Facilitation encompassed the cued location and all locations between the cue and fixation, whereas IOR arose for the entire cued hemifield. These findings suggest that the facilitation and IOR found on COVATs that use noninformative peripheral cues are separable and stimulus-driven processes.     

On the uniqueness of attentional capture by uninformative gaze cues: facilitation interacts with the Simon effect and is rarely followed by IOR.

Orienting to an uninformative peripheral cue is characterized by a brief facilitation followed by a long-lasting inhibition once attention is removed from the cued location. Although central gaze cues cause reflexive orienting, the inhibitory effect that is relatively ubiquitous following exogenous orienting to uninformative peripheral cues has been relatively rare. We hypothesized that IOR might be seen following gaze-induced orienting if attention were effectively returned to centre by a return gaze or return flash. The timecourse of gaze-directed orienting was measured by varying the interval between the gaze cue and a peripheral target requiring an orientation discrimination (permitting measurement of the Simon effect). Significant facilitation was observed at all but the longest SOA tested, 2,880 ms, by which time the facilitation had disappeared with no evidence of IOR. Gaze-induced cuing (which was unaffected by return cue condition) interacted with the Simon effect, decreasing it at the gazed-at location, a pattern that is not seen with more typical endogenous and exogenous cuing.     

Reorienting attention and inhibition of return

In experiments examining inhibition of return (IOR), it is common practice to present a second cue at fixation during the cue-target interval. The purpose of this fixation cue is to reorient attention away from the cued location to ensure that the facilitative effects of spatial attention do not obscure IOR. However, despite their frequent use, relatively little is known about the relationship between fixation cues and IOR. In the present experiments, we examined the role of fixation cues by manipulating their presence in tasks that either did or did not require target identification. When the participants were required to either detect (Experiment 1A) or localize (Experiment 2A) a target, the magnitude of IOR was unaffected by the presence of a fixation cue. In contrast, when the participants were required to identify a target (Experiments 1B, 2B, and 3), IOR was observed only when a fixation cue was presented. This result was obtained regardless of the type of response that was required (two-alternative forced choice or go/no go). The effectiveness of the fixation cue in revealing IOR in these tasks is consistent with its putative role in reorienting attention away from the cued location.     

Focal spatial attention can eliminate inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) is an orienting phenomenon characterized by slower responses to spatially cued than to uncued targets. In Experiment 1, a physically small digit that required identification was presented immediately following a peripheral cue. The digit could appear in the cued peripheral box or in the central box, thus guaranteeing a saccadic response to the cue in one condition and maintenance of fixation in the other. An IOR effect was observed when a saccadic response to the cue was required, but IOR was not generated by the peripheral cue when fixation was maintained in order to process the central digit. In Experiment 2, IOR effects were observed when participants were instructed to ignore the digits, whether those digits were presented in the periphery or at fixation. These findings suggest that behaviorally manifested, cue-induced IOR effects can be eliminated by focal spatial attentional control settings.     

Inhibition of return with rapid serial shifts of attention: implications for memory and visual search

Horowitz and Wolfe (2001) suggested that inhibition of return (IOR) should not be observed in tasks that involve rapid deployments of attention. To examine this issue, five of six possible locations were sequentially cued with either short-duration peripheral cues (50 msec) or long-duration peripheral cues (500 msec). As was expected, IOR was observed in the first two experiments at every cued location with the long-duration cues, with the magnitude of IOR decreasing for earlier cued locations relative to later cued locations. In the short-cue condition, IOR was observed at only one cued location (the second to last). The pattern of results for the short-duration cues was found regardless of whether the fixation cue was of a short (Experiment 1) or a long (Experiment 2) duration. In Experiment 3, the final fixation cue was removed, and IOR was again observed at virtually all locations in both the short- and the long-cue conditions. These findings indicate that IOR can be observed at multiple locations when attention is shifted rapidly between locations.     

A biased-competition approach to spatial cueing: Combining empirical studies and computational modelling

We examined the effects of cue luminance on visual orienting. Experiment 1 established that the commonly-found early facilitation and late inhibition of return (IOR) effects were independent of cue luminance with single cues in terms of their amplitude, although IOR was delayed in the low compared to the high luminance cue condition. In contrast, Experiment 2 revealed that, with dual cues of mixed luminance, both facilitation and IOR effects were found only with bright cues. When cues had equal luminance, however, there were cueing effects for two cued locations but only when the cues were bright. The data were accommodated in a neural network model of biased competition in which cueing effects emerge at more than one location provided input activation is sufficient to overcome competitive damping of the selection system.     

Is “Inhibition of Return” due to the inhibition of the return of attention?

Inhibition of Return (IOR) is usually explained in terms of orienting–reorienting of attention, emphasizing an underlying mechanism that inhibits the return of attention to previously selected locations. Recent data challenge this explanation to the extent that the IOR effect is observed at the location where attention is oriented to, where no reorienting of attention is needed. To date, these studies have involved endogenous attentional selection of attention and thus indicate a dissociation between the voluntary attention of spatial attention and the IOR effect. The present work demonstrates a dissociation between the involuntary orienting of spatial attention and the IOR effect. We combined nonpredictive peripheral cues with nonpredictive central orienting cues (either arrows or gaze). The IOR effect was observed to operate independent of involuntary spatial orienting. These data speak against the “reorienting hypothesis” of IOR. We suggest an alternative explanation whereby the IOR effect reflects a cost in detecting a new event (the target) at the location where another event (a cue) was coded before.     

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.     

Inhibitory tagging in inhibition of return: Evidence from flanker interference with multiple distractor features

Fuentes, Vivas, and Humphreys (1999) proposed a distinction betweeninhibition of return (IOR) and inhibitory processing taking place at a location subject to IOR. This latter mechanism,inhibitory tagging (IT), would act at a late level of processing related to response selection. In the present study, we examined whether IT was applied only to the target-relevant properties of the stimuli (e.g., to its color) or whether it was applied to other features of the stimulus as well (e.g., to its shape). Both when the task was to respond to the target’s color (Experiment 1) as well as when it was to respond to the target’s shape (Experiment 2), there was evidence of IT (reversal of the typical flanker effect at the cued location, relative to the uncued location) only to task-relevant features of the target. These findings suggest that IT is a central process of control constrained by task demands and current goals.     

Examining the time course of facilitation and inhibition with simultaneous onset and offset cues

The experiment conducted examined the effect of simultaneously presented onset and offset cues on the orienting of attention in the visual field. Subjects were presented with a display that consisted of four placeholder boxes around a central fixation point. An onset and an offset cue appeared simultaneously in two of the locations, and the other two locations provided a neutral baseline condition. Reaction times were measured in a simple target detection task with stimulus-onset asynchronies (SOAs) that ranged from 100 ms to 1,000 ms. As expected, the onset cue produced early facilitation and later occurring inhibition of return (IOR). The offset cue produced significant inhibition at all but the earliest SOA. These results suggest that simultaneously presented onset and offset cues both capture attention, but that attention is rapidly disengaged from the location of the offset cue, resulting in earlier occurring IOR. For the onset cues, attention is allocated for a longer period of time, producing the typical pattern of early facilitation and later occurring IOR. The differing time course of attention at each location may reflect separate facilitatory and inhibitory processes, and the priority given to the onset of a stimulus by the attentional system.     

Inhibitory interaction: the effects of multiple non-predictive visual cues

When the interval between a non-predictive cue and a target appearing at the same spatial location is longer than about 200 ms, target performance is typically poorer than when the cue and target appear at different locations. Recent studies have shown that this effect, known as inhibition of return (IOR), can occur at multiple cued locations, and is enhanced when multiple cues are presented at the same spatial location. However, little is known about how the magnitude of IOR at one spatial location is influenced by a subsequent or preceding cue presented at a different spatial location. We investigated this issue by presenting single or multiple cues at varying inter-cue intervals prior to target onset. Results suggest that the magnitude of IOR at a given location is influenced by the presentation of a preceding cue, but that once IOR occurs, it is unaffected by the presentation of a subsequent cue.     

Stimulus-response probability and inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slowed responding to targets at a location previously occupied by an irrelevant cue. Here we explore the interaction between stimulus-response (S-R) probability and IOR effects using go/no-go (Experiment 1) and two-choice discrimination tasks (Experiment 2). In both experiments, the IOR effect was larger for the likely S-R ensemble than for the unlikely one. In the first experiment, there were more false alarms for uncued targets than for cued targets, and this difference was larger for the unlikely S-R ensemble than for the likely one. In the second experiment, the same pattern was observed for incorrect keypress responses. As with voluntary orienting in response to predictive central cues, the results suggest that IOR affects late stages of processing by altering the criteria to respond to targets presented at the cued (previously attended) location.     

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。     

Spatial orienting of tactile attention induced by social cues

Several studies have established that humans orient their visual attention reflexively in response to social cues such as the direction of someone else’s gaze. However, the consequences of this kind of orienting have been addressed only for the visual system. We investigated whether visual social attention cues can induce shifts in tactile attention by combining a central noninformative eye-gaze cue with tactile targets presented to participants’ fingertips. Data from speeded detection, speeded discrimination, and signal detection tasks converged on the same conclusion: Eye-gaze-based orienting facilitates the processing of tactile targets at the location of the gazed-at body location. In addition, we examined the effects of other directional cues, such as conventional arrows, and found that they can be equally effective. This is the first demonstration that social attention cues have consequences that reach beyond their own sensory modality.     

The spatial distribution of inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the finding that response times (RTs) are typically slower for targets at previously attended (cued) locations than for targets at novel (uncued) locations. Although previous research has indicated that IOR may spread beyond a cued location, the present study is the first to examine the spatial distribution of IOR with high spatial resolution over a large portion of the central visual field. This was done by using a typical IOR procedure (cue, delay, target) with 4 cue locations and 441 target locations (each separated by 1° of visual angle). The results indicate that IOR spreads beyond the cued location to affect the cued hemifield. However, the cues also produced a gradient of RTs throughout the visual field, with inhibition in the cued hemifield gradually giving way to facilitation in the hemifield opposite the cue.     

The neural correlates of social attention: automatic orienting to social and nonsocial cues

Previous evidence suggests that directional social cues (e.g., eye gaze) cause automatic shifts in attention toward gaze direction. It has been proposed that automatic attentional orienting driven by social cues (social orienting) involves a different neural network from automatic orienting driven by nonsocial cues. However, previous neuroimaging studies on social orienting have only compared gaze cues to symbolic cues, which typically engage top-down mechanisms. Therefore, we directly compared the neural activity involved in social orienting to that involved in purely automatic nonsocial orienting. Twenty participants performed a spatial cueing task consisting of social (gaze) cues and automatic nonsocial (peripheral squares) cues presented at short and long stimulus (cue-to-target) onset asynchronies (SOA), while undergoing fMRI. Behaviorally, a facilitation effect was found for both cue types at the short SOA, while an inhibitory effect (inhibition of return: IOR) was found only for nonsocial cues at the long SOA. Imaging results demonstrated that social and nonsocial cues recruited a largely overlapping fronto-parietal network. In addition, social cueing evoked greater activity in occipito-temporal regions at both SOAs, while nonsocial cueing recruited greater subcortical activity, but only for the long SOA (when IOR was found). A control experiment, including central arrow cues, confirmed that the occipito-temporal activity was at least in part due to the social nature of the cue and not simply to the location of presentation (central vs. peripheral). These results suggest an evolutionary trajectory for automatic orienting, from predominantly subcortical mechanisms for nonsocial orienting to predominantly cortical mechanisms for social orienting.     

A short-lived face alert during inhibition of return

In the present study, we explored the role of faces in oculomotor inhibition of return (IOR) using a tightly controlled spatial cuing paradigm. We measured saccadic response latency to targets following peripheral cues that were either faces or objects of lesser sociobiological salience. A recurring influence from cue content was observed across numerous methodological variations. Faces versus other object cues briefly reduced saccade latencies toward subsequently presented targets, independently of attentional allocation and IOR. The results suggest a short-lived priming effect or social facilitation effect from the mere presence of a face. In the present study, we further showed that saccadic responses were unaffected by face versus nonface objects in double-cue presentations. Our findings indicate that peripheral face cues do not influence attentional orienting processes involved in IOR any differently from other objects in a tightly controlled oculomotor IOR paradigm.     

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.