Inhibition of return spreads across 3-D space

Focusing attention to a location in 3–D space operates much the same as in 2–D space. Attending a location in 2–D space is followed by a selective inhibitory aftereffect known as inhibition of return (IOR). Here, we report the results of two 3–D reflexive cuing studies in which depth was defined by binocular disparity. As has been shown before, attentional cuing was specific for x–y–z locations. However, the present results show that IOR is not depth specific. After a specific location in x–y–z is cued, IOR occurs for the depth plane in front of and behind the cued location. The finding that IOR spreads across depth planes may be related to how inhibited locations are encoded in the superior colliculus. We argue that the functional role of a depth–blind IOR is to bias attention against going back to any part of a previously attended object.     

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 object identity in inhibition of return: Implications for encoding and retrieving inhibitory processes

Inhibition of return (IOR) effects, in which participants detect a target in a cued box more slowly than one in an uncued box, suggest that behavior is aided by inhibition of recently attended irrelevant locations. To investigate the controversial question of whether inhibition can be applied to object identity in these tasks, in the present research we presented faces upright or inverted during cue and/or target sequences. IOR was greater when both cue and target faces were upright than when cue and/or target faces were inverted. Because the only difference between the conditions was the ease of facial recognition, this result indicates that inhibition was applied to object identity. Interestingly, inhibition of object identity affected IOR both whenencoding a cue face andretrieving information about a target face. Accordingly, we propose that episodic retrieval of inhibition associated with object identity may mediate behavior in cuing tasks.     

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.     

Intentional and unintentional contributions to nonspecific preparation during reaction time foreperiods

The nonspecific preparation that follows a warning stimulus (WS) to speed responding to an impending imperative stimulus (IS) is generally viewed as a strategic, intentional process. An alternative view holds that WS acts as a conditioned stimulus that unintentionally elicits a tendency to respond at the moment of IS presentation as a result of a process of trace conditioning. These views were contrasted as explanatory frameworks for classical effects on reaction time of the duration and intertrial variability of the foreperiod, the interval between WS and IS. It is shown that the conditioning view accounts for the available data at least as well as the strategic view. In addition, the results of 3 experiments provide support for the conditioning view by showing that unintentional contributions to nonspecific preparation can be dissociated from intentional contributions.     

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.     

The point of no return in choice reaction time: controlled and ballistic stages of response preparation

A countermanding procedure and race model are used to assess separately the effects of experimental factors before and after the "point of no return" in response preparation. The results reveal details about processes that so closely precede the initiation of movement that they cannot be inhibited. These processes appear to be affected by the repetition of stimulus-response pairs, but not by the physical or semantic properties of the stimuli. A model of response preparation is supported in which response inhibition depends upon the outcome of a race between independent excitatory and inhibitory processes, and reaction time is the sum of the durations of at least two stages, separated by the point of no return.     

Effects of response preparation on developmental improvements in inhibitory control

Studies in adults indicate that response preparation is crucial to inhibitory control, but it remains unclear whether preparation contributes to improvements in inhibitory control over the course of childhood and adolescence. In order to assess the role of response preparation in developmental improvements in inhibitory control, we parametrically manipulated the duration of the instruction period in an antisaccade (AS) task given to participants from ages 8 to 31 years. Regressions showing a protracted development of AS performance were consistent with existing research, and two novel findings emerged. First, all participants showed improved performance with increased preparation time, indicating that response preparation is crucial to inhibitory control at all stages of development. Preparatory processes did not deteriorate at even the longest preparatory period, indicating that the youngest participants were able to sustain preparation at even the longest interval. Second, developmental trajectories did not differ for different preparatory period lengths, highlighting that the processes supporting response preparation continue to mature in tandem with improvements in AS performance. Our findings suggest that developmental improvements are not simply due to an inhibitory system that is faster to engage but may also reflect qualitative changes in the processes engaged during the preparatory period.     

Learning words in space and time: probing the mechanisms behind the suspicious-coincidence effect

A major debate in the study of word learning centers on the extension of categories to new items. The rational approach assumes that learners make structured inferences about category membership, whereas the mechanistic approach emphasizes the attentional and memory processes that form the basis of generalization behaviors. Recent support for the rational view comes from observations of the suspicious-coincidence effect: People generalize category membership narrowly when presented with three subordinate-level exemplars that share the same label and generalize category membership broadly when presented with one exemplar. Across three experiments, we examined the mechanistic basis of this effect. Results showed that the presentation of multiple subordinate-level exemplars led to narrow generalization only when the exemplars were presented simultaneously, even when the number of exemplars was increased from three to six. These data demonstrate that the suspicious-coincidence effect is firmly grounded in the general cognitive processes of attention, memory, and visual comparison.     

Inhibition of return: Unraveling a paradox

Although inhibition of return (IOR) is widely believed to aid search by discouraging reexamination of previously inspected locations, its impact actually appears to decline as the number of target locations increases. We test three possible reasons for this paradoxical result: (1) IOR is capacity-limited, (2) IOR is sensitive to subtle changes in target location probability, and (3) IOR decays with distance from a previously attended location. The present investigation provides strong support for the third explanation, indicating that a gradient of inhibition is centered on previously attended locations. We note that this inhibitory gradient resolves a paradox in the literature. Moreover, we speculate that the inhibitory gradient may reflect a “similarity space” within which target locations near to the cue are tagged with inhibition due to their similarity to the cued location. The farther the target location is away, the less similar it is to the cued location, and thus the less inhibition it receives.     

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 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.     

Top-down control in time and space: Evidence from saccadic latencies and trajectories

Visual distractors disrupt the production of saccadic eye movements temporally, by increasing saccade latency, and spatially, by biasing the trajectory of the movement. The present research investigated the extent to which top-down control can be exerted over these two forms of oculomotor capture. In two experiments, people were instructed to make target directed saccades in the presence of distractors, and temporal and spatial capture were assessed simultaneously by measuring saccade latency and saccade trajectory curvature, respectively. In Experiment 1, an attentional control set manipulation was employed, resulting in the elimination of temporal capture, but only an attenuation of spatial capture. In Experiment 2, foreknowledge of the target location caused an attenuation of temporal capture but an enhancement of spatial capture. These results suggest that, whereas temporal capture is contingent on top-down control, the spatial component of capture is stimulus-driven.     

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 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 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.     

自闭症谱系障碍者抑制控制的影响因素及神经机制

自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)是一种起源于儿童期的神经发育障碍, ASD的重复刻板行为与其抑制控制发展有密切关系。使用Go/No-go、Flanker及Stroop等范式的研究发现, ASD者抑制控制受损主要表现为反应抑制和干扰抑制能力存在缺陷; 其主要影响因素是任务状态、被试年龄及取样; 涉及的脑区和脑网络集中在前额皮层、前扣带回和基底神经节; 涉及的基因集中在谷氨酸盐、γ-氨基丁酸与5-羟色胺三种神经递质。未来应从脑机制研究入手, 综合考虑任务状态、个体特征对研究结果造成的影响, 并着力开发更有效的干预模式。     

Intentional and unintentional contributions to nonspecific preparation: electrophysiological evidence

The authors hypothesized that there are distinct intentional and unintentional influences on nonspecific preparation for a future event. In 2 experiments, participants responded to an imperative stimulus (S-sub-2) that was presented equiprobably either 400 ms or 1,200 ms after the offset of a warning stimulus (S-sub-1). During the S-sub-1-S-sub-2 interval, the authors measured the contingent negative variation (CNV), an event-related brain potential reflecting nonspecific preparation. S-sub-1 provided either no information or reliable information about the duration of the impending S-sub-1-S-sub-2 interval, thereby allowing an intentional influence on the state of preparation. The effect of S-sub-1 information on the CNV was approximately additive to the effect of the S-sub-1-S-sub-2 interval that was used on the preceding trial. This supports the view that the preceding S-sub-1-S-sub-2 interval contributes unintentionally to the state of nonspecific preparation guided by a process of trace conditioning.     

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 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.