Temporal ambiguity of onsets in a cueing task prevents facilitation but not inhibition of return

Cueing effects, i.e., early facilitation of reaction time and inhibition of return (IOR), are well-established and robust phenomena characterizing exogenous orienting and are widely observed in experiments with a traditional Posner cueing paradigm. Krüger, MacInnes, and Hunt (2014) proposed that facilitatory effects of peripheral cues are the result of a cue-target perceptual merging due to re-entrant visual processing. To test the role and timing of these feedback mechanisms in peripheral cueing effects, we modified the traditional cueing task in Experiments 1-3 by interleaving pre- and post-cue trials at the valid and invalid location and random cue-target onset asynchrony (CTOA) ranging from ?300 to +1,000 ms. Analysis of the manual reaction time distribution over CTOA showed well-pronounced IOR in the valid pre-cue condition and a small cost of perceptual merging in the post-cue condition, but no early facilitation of reaction time was observed in the pre-cue condition. In Experiment 4, we tested directly whether temporal ambiguity eliminated facilitation by restricting CTOAs to only the pre-cue time range and including a between-subject manipulation of a) random, b) mixed discrete, and c) blocked discrete CTOAs. Results obtained in the continuous and binned conditions showed no facilitation but robust IOR. We found both early facilitation and IOR in the blocked condition. Overall, the present findings show a small perceptual merging result without accompanying facilitation, suggesting different underlying mechanisms. Second, they demonstrate that early facilitation is likely to be affected by the presence or absence of temporal expectations and that the early onset of IOR might be masked by stronger facilitation in traditional cueing experiments.     

The processes of facilitation and inhibition in a cue-target paradigm: insight from movement trajectory deviations

Several researchers have examined the trajectories of aiming movements in cue-target paradigms to investigate the motoric and attentional underpinnings of the inhibition of return (IOR) effect. The results of separate studies have revealed inconsistent patterns of trajectory deviations. These discrepancies may have arisen because the studies used narrow ranges of cue-target onset asynchronies (CTOAs) which may have prevented the time courses of facilitation and inhibition effects to be fully assessed. The present study was designed to conduct an examination of temporal and spatial characteristics of aiming movements over a broader range of CTOAs to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the potential expression of attentional and motoric contributions to cuing effects. Participants aimed to targets which were preceded by a non-predictive cue at CTOAs of 100, 350, 850, and 1100 ms. Analysis of spatial and temporal characteristics of the movements revealed facilitatory and inhibitory cuing effects in the trajectories, but only inhibitory cuing effects in RT. Further, the inhibitory effects in RT appeared at a shorter CTOA than the inhibitory effects in trajectories. This pattern of results suggests that the inhibitory mechanisms underlying IOR affect both attention and motor systems, but that these effects are displaced in time.     

Perceptual and motor inhibition of return: components or flavors?

The most common evidence for inhibition of return (IOR) is the robust finding of increased response times to targets that appear at previously cued locations following a cue?Ctarget interval exceeding ~300?ms. In a variation on this paradigm, Abrams and Dobkin (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20:467?C477, 1994b) observed that IOR was greater when measured with a saccadic response to a peripheral target than with that to a central arrow, leading to the conclusion that saccadic responses to peripheral targets comprise motoric and perceptual components (the two-components theory for saccadic IOR), whereas saccadic responses to a central target comprise a single motoric component. In contrast, Taylor and Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26:1639?C1656, 2000) discovered that IOR for saccadic responses was equivalent for central and peripheral targets, suggesting a single motoric effect under these conditions. Rooted in methodological differences between the studies, three possible explanations for this discrepancy can be found in the literature. Here, we demonstrate that the empirical discrepancy is rooted in the following methodological difference: Whereas Abrams and Dobkin (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20:467?C477, 1994b) administered central arrow and peripheral onset targets in separate blocks, Taylor and Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26:1639?C1656, 2000) randomly intermixed these stimuli in a single block. Our results demonstrate that (1) blocking central arrow targets fosters a spatial attentional control setting that allows for the long-lasting IOR normally generated by irrelevant peripheral cues to be filtered and (2) repeated sensory stimulation has no direct effect on the magnitude of IOR measured by saccadic responses to targets presented about 1?s after a peripheral cue.     

Averaging saccades are repelled by prior uninformative cues at both short and long intervals

When two spatially proximal stimuli are presented simultaneously, a first saccade is often directed to an intermediate location between the stimuli (averaging saccade). In an earlier study, Watanabe (2001) showed that, at a long cue–target onset asynchrony (CTOA; 600 ms), uninformative cues not only slowed saccadic response times (SRTs) to targets presented at the cued location in single target trials (inhibition of return, IOR), but also biased averaging saccades away from the cue in double target trials. The present study replicated Watanabe's experimental task with a short CTOA (50 ms), as well as with mixed short (50 ms) and long (600 ms) CTOAs. In all conditions on double target trials, uninformative cues robustly biased averaging saccades away from cued locations. Although SRTs on single target trials were delayed at previously cued locations at both CTOAs when they were mixed, this delay was not observed in the blocked, short CTOA condition. We suggest that top-down factors, such as expectation and attentional control settings, may have asymmetric effects on the temporal and spatial dynamics of oculomotor processing.     

Determining whether attentional control settings are inclusive or exclusive

The aim of the present study was to determine whether attentional control settings operate with an inclusive rule (orient attention to stimuli that share a task-relevant feature with the target) or an exclusive rule (do not orient attention to stimuli that do not share a task-relevant feature with the target). All three experiments used a variation of the Folk and Remington (e.g., Folk, Remington, & Johnston, 1992) paradigm. In Experiment 1, cuing effects were found for combination cues (cues containing an onset feature and a color feature) with both onset and color targets. Experiment 2, using a delay between cue and target, revealed inhibition of return (IOR) for combination cues with onset and color targets. Unexpectedly, IOR was also found for onset cues with color targets, and this finding was confirmed in Experiment 3. These findings indicate that attentional control settings use an inclusive rule. Moreover, the presence of IOR with onset cues and color targets suggests that onset cues may automatically capture attention, but attention control settings allow for rapid disengagement when the onset cue does not contain a task-relevant feature.     

Inhibition of return following instructions to remember and forget.

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slowed responding to a target that appears in the same rather than in a different location as a preceding peripheral onset cue. This study examined IOR as a function of whether the peripheral onset cue was a word that participants were directed to remember or forget. Using a modified item-method directed forgetting paradigm, words appeared one at a time to the left or right, followed by a remember or forget instruction. A target dot was then presented either in the same peripheral location as the preceding word or in a different location; participants made a speeded response to localize this target. Confirming compliance with the memory instructions, recall tests that alternated with blocks of IOR trials (Experiment 1) revealed few intrusions of to-be-forgotten words, and a final recognition test (Experiments 1 and 3) revealed more hits for to-be-remembered words than for to-be-forgotten words. Reaction times to the target dot revealed greater magnitude IOR following to-be-forgotten words than following to-be-remembered words (Experiments 1 and 3). Moreover, when compared to baseline IOR values (Experiment 2), it appeared that this difference resulted from a magnification of IOR following forget instructions and a reduction in IOR following remember instructions. These results demonstrate the usefulness of IOR as an index of memorial processes and suggest that attentional orienting may play a role in the remembering and forgetting of words presented in peripheral visual locations.     

Long-term repetition effects for motoric and perceptual procedures.

Two experiments examined the relationship between implicit and explicit measures of memory for information encoded in a motoric task, called data entry. In both experiments, subjects entered lists of digit sequences with a computer keypad. They were retested on the same task after a delay of up to 1 month. At retention, implicit memory for the digit lists was evidenced by faster entry of old relative to new lists in both experiments. In Experiment 1, subjects were able to discriminate old from new lists. Recognition memory of old lists was better after than before entering the lists. In Experiment 2, perceptual and motoric contributions to the old/new difference in typing speed were isolated by means of a transfer paradigm. The results showed that the entry-speed advantage for the old lists was due to the separate reinstatement at the retention test of both perceptual and motoric procedures encoded earlier. Implicit and explicit measures of memory were found to be dependent rather than independent. The findings from this study are interpreted within a framework of memory based on procedural reinstatement.     

Influence of endogenous and exogenous orientations of attention on inhibition of return in a cross-modal target-target aiming task

The authors conducted 2 experiments in which participants (N = 16 in each) executed successive unimanual aiming movements to target locations that were indicated by the onset of either an auditory or a visual stimulus. In Experiment 1 (exogenous orientation), inhibition of return (IOR) effects were observed, with reliable reaction time (RT) costs associated with movements returning to the same target and a trend toward larger IOR effects in left than in right space. There was no influence of stimulus modality on the magnitude of IOR. IOR was also observed in Experiment 2 (endogenous orientation), except the influence of stimulus modality reliably mediated those effect. In that case, IOR was evident only when the previous modality was visual and the current modality was auditory. Together, the results of those 2 experiments suggest that in situations in which 2 paired movements constitute the response criteria, IOR is both supramodal and lateralized to contralateral space.     

The effects of ignored versus foveated cues upon inhibition of return: An event-related potential study

Taylor and Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26:1639–1656, 2000) discovered two mutually exclusive “flavors” of inhibition of return (IOR): When the oculomotor system is “actively suppressed,” IOR affects input processes (the perception/attention flavor), whereas when the oculomotor system is “engaged,” IOR affects output processes (the motor flavor). Studies of brain activity with ignored cues have typically reported that IOR reduces an early sensory event-related potential (ERP) component (i.e., the P1 component) of the brain’s response to the target. Since eye movements were discouraged in these experiments, the P1 reduction might be a reflection of the perception/attention flavor of IOR. If, instead of ignoring the cue, participants made a prosaccade to the cue (and then returned to fixation) before responding to the target, the motor flavor of IOR should then be generated. We compared these two conditions while monitoring eye position and recording ERPs to the targets. If the P1 modulation is related to the perceptual/attentional flavor of IOR, we hypothesized that it might be absent when the motoric flavor of IOR was generated by a prosaccade to the cue. Our results demonstrated that target-related P1 reductions and behavioral IOR were similar, and significant, in both conditions. However, P1 modulations were significantly correlated with behavioral IOR only when the oculomotor system was actively suppressed, suggesting that P1 modulations may only affect behaviorally exhibited IOR when the attentional/perceptual flavor of IOR is recruited.     

Inhibition of return lasts longer at repeatedly stimulated locations than at novel locations

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the fact that it takes longer for people to attend to recently examined locations than to novel locations. It has been argued that a single mechanism governs both IOR and negative priming (NP). If this is true, IOR and NP should share similar characteristics. Since NP depends on the use of repeated stimuli, in this study the dependence of IOR on repeated stimuli was explored. Experiments 1A—1D showed that, at longer cue-to-target-onset asynchrony (CTOA) intervals (613 and 906 msec), IOR could be observed only at repeatedly stimulated locations. However, IOR was observed when CTOA was short (253 msec) regardless of stimulus repetition. Experiments 2 and 3 replicated Experiments 1A—1D with a within-subjects design. The important role of memory representations in IOR is proposed.     

Modulation of inhibition of return by type and number of dynamic changes of the cue

Inhibition of return (IOR) is a response delay when the target is preceded by an irrelevant stimulus (cue) at the same location. In a previous study, we investigated the separate and joint effects on IOR of cue onset and offset. IOR was much greater when cue onset was followed by cue offset (on-off cue) than when the cue was a single event (on or off cues). The aim of the present study was to test whether the greater IOR with an on-off cue is due to the presence of two cue events. Three experiments were conducted. In Experiment 1 we replicated, with a different delay between cue onset and offset, the finding that IOR is greater with an on-off cue than with a single cue event. In Experiments 2 and 3, we used cues formed by two events. In Experiment 2, an on-off cue was compared with an off-on cue, whereas in Experiment 3 an on-on cue was compared with an off-off cue. Results showed that the magnitude of IOR did not simply depend on the number of cue events occurring before the target. IOR was greater with two different events than with two identical events and greater when was preceded by an off-event than an on-event. Therefore, IOR was greatest with an on-off cue, which likely also benefited from a gap effect. Possible mechanisms underlying IOR were discussed. Received: 31 March 1999 / Accepted: 23 July 1999     

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.     

The presence of a nonresponding effector increases inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the performance disadvantage for targets presented at an exogenously cued location, relative to an uncued location, at relatively long cue-target onset asynchronies. In this experiment, we investigated the influence on IOR of a nonresponding effector (i.e., the index finger of the nonresponding hand) placed on a response key in a simple-RT task. With peripheral cues and targets, IOR and spatial stimulus-response compatibility effects were larger when the nonresponding hand was placed on a response key. IOR—the slowed responding to go signals at the cued location—was accompanied by a lower false alarm rate when no-go signals were presented there. These findings provide direct evidence for a motoric component to IOR wherein some portion of the inhibition is observed as a criterion shift against responding to the cued location.     

Stroop interference is affected in inhibition of return

In previous research, we have shown that the processing of targets that are presented to locations subject to inhibition of return (IOR) is affected by an inhibitory tagging mechanism. This mechanism acts by disconnecting activated representations of stimuli at inhibited locations from their associated responses. In two experiments, we assessed whether this inhibitory tagging mechanism of visual attention is also applied to task-irrelevant but prepotent dimensions of target stimuli, such as words in the Stroop task. To test this hypothesis, we examined the Stroop effect in an IOR procedure. The results showed that (1) IOR can be found in a color discrimination task, (2) the Stroop interference was reduced (Experiment 1) or eliminated (Experiment 2) when stimuli appeared at cued locations, as compared with cases in which they were presented at uncued locations, and (3) the effect of inhibitory tagging was limited to the shortest stimulus onset asynchrony value, replicating previous findings. These results agree with the idea that inhibitory tagging, occurring in IOR, affects the efficiency with which color words compete for responses in Stroop-like situations.     

颜色和形状工作记忆对非空间返回抑制效应的影响

为进一步考察非空间返回抑制效应是否受工作记忆内容的影响,分别采用颜色和形状工作记忆内容,通过两个实验考察了工作记忆对非空间返回抑制效应的影响。实验结果表明,在颜色和形状工作记忆条件下,均产生了颜色或形状返回抑制效应,并且颜色或形状返回抑制效应量之间均无显著差异,颜色和形状工作记忆内容只增加了判断靶刺激的反应时。研究结论对进一步认识工作记忆内容与非空间返回抑制效应之间的关系有重要参考价值。     

Two components in IOR: evidence for response bias and perceptual processing delays using the SAT methodology

Inhibition of return (IOR) occurs when reaction times (RTs) are slowed to respond to a target that appears at a previously attended location. We used the speed-accuracy trade-off (SAT) procedure to obtain conjoint measures of IOR on sensitivity and processing speed by presenting targets at cued and uncued locations. The results showed that IOR is associated with both delays in processing speed and shifts in response criterion. When the target was briefly presented, the results supported a criterion shift account of IOR. However, when the target was presented until response, the evidence indicated that, in addition to a response bias effect, there was an increase in the minimal time required for information about the target to accumulate above chance level. A hybrid account of IOR is suggested that describes effects on both response bias and perceptual processing.     

Timing of reflexive visuospatial orienting in young, young-old, and old-old adults

This study examined adult age differences in reflexive orienting to two types of uninformative spatial cues: central arrows and peripheral onsets. In two experiments using a Posner cuing task, young adults (ages 18–28 years), young-old adults (60–74 years), and old-old adults (75–92 years) responded to targets that were preceded 100–1,000 ms earlier by a central arrow or a peripheral abrupt onset. In Experiment 1, the cue remained present upon target onset. Facilitation effects at short cue–target stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) were prolonged in duration for the two older groups relative to the young adults. At longer cue–target SOAs, inhibition of return (IOR) that was initiated by peripheral onset cues was observed in the performance of young adults but not in that of the two older groups. In Experiment 2, the cue was presented briefly and removed prior to target onset. The change in cue duration minimized age differences (particularly for young-old adults) in facilitation effects and led to IOR for all three age groups. The findings are consistent with the idea that attentional control settings change with age, with higher settings for older adults leading to delayed disengagement from spatial cues.     

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。     

Oculomotor inhibition of return: Evidence against object-centered representation

ABSTRACT

Intermixing central, directional arrow targets with the peripheral targets typically used in the Posnerian spatial cueing paradigm offers a useful diagnostic for ascertaining the relative contributions of output and input processes to oculomotor inhibition of return (IOR). Here, we use this diagnostic to determine whether object-based oculomotor IOR comprises output and/or input processes. One of two placeholder objects in peripheral vision was cued, then both objects rotated smoothly either 90 or 180 degrees around the circumference of an imaginary circle. After this movement, a saccade was made to the location marked by a peripheral onset target or indicated by the central arrow. In our first three experiments, whereas there was evidence for IOR when measured by central arrow or peripheral onset targets at cued locations, there was little trace of IOR at the cued object. We thereafter precisely replicated the seminal experiment for object-based oculomotor IOR (Abrams, R. A., & Dobkin, R. S. (1994). Inhibition of return: Effects of attentional cuing on eye movement latencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(3), 467–477; Experiment 4) but again found little evidence of an object-based IOR effect. Finally, we ran a paradigm with only peripheral targets and with motion and stationary trials randomly intermixed. Here we again showed IOR at the cued location but not at the cued object. Together, the findings suggest that object-based representation of oculomotor IOR is much more tenuous than implied by the literature.     

Leading,but not trailing,primes influence temporal order perception: further evidence for an attentional account of perceptual latency priming

Presenting a masked prime leading a target influences the perceived onset of the masking target (perceptual latency priming; Scharlau & Neumann, in press). This priming effect is explained by the asynchronous updating model (Neumann, 1982; Scharlau & Neumann, in press): The prime initiates attentional allocation toward its location, which renders a trailing target at the same place consciously available earlier. In three experiments, this perceptual latency priming by leading primes was examined jointly with the effects of trailing primes in order to compare the explanation of the asynchronous updating model with the onset-averaging and the P-center hypotheses. Experiment 1 showed that an attended, as well as an unattended, prime leads to perceptual latency priming. In addition, a large effect of trailing primes on the onset of a target was found. As Experiment 2 demonstrated, this effect is quite robust, although smaller than that of a leading prime. In Experiment 3, masked primes were used. Under these conditions, no influence of trailing primes could be found, whereas perceptual latency priming persisted. Thus, a nonattentional explanation for the effect of trailing primes seems likely.