Disinhibition of return: Unnecessary and unlikely

Recently, from data obtained with a temporal order judgment (TOJ) task, Gibson and Egeth (1994) concluded that inhibition of return (IOR; a response time effect that reveals slower responding to targets at previously cued versus uncued locations) reflects impaired perceptual processing. By replotting their data, we demonstrate that the perception of temporal order is influenced only by the facilitatory effect of a cue at short stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) and is unaffected by IOR at long SO As. The target paper proposed that, when extra stimuli are presented at task-relevant locations (i.e., in the TOJ task), IOR is prevented by a hypothetical process that is known as disinhibition of return (DOR). We argue that the assumptions that IOR affects perceptual processing and that DOR exists are unnecessary, as a more parsimonious response-based interpretation of IOR is consistent with their data. Further, we summarize recent results and present new data that demonstrate that DOR is unlikely.     

Object-based perception mediates the effect of exogenous attention on temporal resolution

The effects of target distinctiveness, target placeholders, and target spatial separation on the relation between exogenous attention and temporal resolution were examined in a visual temporal order judgement (TOJ) task. When identical targets were presented at different locations within a cued or uncued placeholder, attention degraded temporal resolution (Experiment 1), but when distinct targets were presented at different locations that cueing effect disappeared (Experiment 2), and when the target placeholders were not used, attention enhanced temporal resolution for distinct targets presented at different locations (Experiment 3). Attention also degraded temporal resolution when distinct targets were presented at the same location (Experiment 4). The latter two results were then replicated in a task in which distinct targets appeared randomly at the same or different locations (Experiment 5). Clearly, the nature of the relation between exogenous attention and temporal resolution is not a straightforward one—the relative location of targets, the similarity of targets, and the presence of placeholders all qualitatively affect the cueing relation. We hypothesize a mediating role for object-related processes. Specifically, exogenous attention enhances feature binding and related object representations, which subsequently degrade temporal resolution.     

同时线索化条件下儿童返回抑制的容量

返回抑制是对先前注意过的目标再次做出反应的时候反应时延长的一种现象。返回抑制具有一定的生物学意义,忽略已经注意过的位置(或客体),使得有机体可以更加有效的注意新的内容。基于这一点,返回抑制现象应该可以在多个已经注意过的位置出现,这便是返回抑制的容量问题。在本研究中,采用同时呈现的线索化方式,考查8岁、10岁儿童在不同的实验任务——觉察任务和辨别任务——中的返回抑制容量。结果发现觉察任务中,10岁组儿童和8岁组儿童最多在5个线索化位置上出现返回抑制,但8岁年龄组的返回抑制容量缺乏稳定;辨别任务中,10岁年龄组只在一个位置上出现返回抑制,而8岁年龄组并没有明显返回抑制现象出现。年龄因素和任务类型对儿童返回抑制容量都产生了一定程度的影响。     

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.     

返回抑制和抑制标签在长时训练下的分离

返回抑制(Inhibition of return, IOR)是指当线索-靶子的时隔大于约300 ms时, 被试对呈现在线索化位置的靶子相较对出现在非线索化位置的靶子而言反应更慢的现象。新近抑制标签 (Inhibitory tagging, IT) 理论指出, 除返回抑制外, 一个由前额叶执行控制系统负责的抑制标签机制也作用于先前线索化位置, 起着暂时中断刺激-反应链接的作用。然而, 迄今为止, 该理论的关键假设-“抑制标签一定程度上独立于返回抑制发挥作用”还未有来自常规被试研究的支持。结合线索-靶子和Stroop范式, 采用8(训练天数)×2(线索-靶子关系)×3(色字一致性)的三因素被试内实验设计, 通过连续8天的长时训练对常规被试的返回抑制和抑制标签功能在学习可塑性上的差别进行考察。结果发现, 返回抑制随着练习的增加呈现出了显著降低的趋势, 而抑制标签并未随着练习的变化而变化。研究结果表明返回抑制和抑制标签在一定程度上可以相互分离, 为抑制标签理论的关键假设提供了重要的来自常规被试的证据。     

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.     

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.     

Inhibition of return for the discrimination of faces

When a target appears unpredictably in the same rather than a different location relative to a preceding onset cue, reaction times (RTs) of participants tasked with responding to the target are slowed. This pattern of results, referred to as inhibition of return (IOR), is believed to reflect the operation of a mechanism that prevents perseverative search of nontarget locations. On the grounds that an evolved mechanism might be sensitive to social stimuli, Taylor and Therrien (2005) examined IOR for localization responses under conditions in which cues and targets could be intact face configurations or nonface configurations; contrary to their predictions, there was no influence of cue or target configuration on the magnitude of IOR, indicating that the mere occurrence of task-irrelevant face and nonface stimuli does not alter IOR. In the present study, we further examined this issue in a task that required a face/nonface target discrimination. When target configuration was thereby made task relevant, we found that IOR differed for face and nonface targets in terms of magnitude (when a single cue-target stimulus onset asynchrony was employed) and time course. We suggest that the RT delay associated with IOR may enable additional processing time and/or response selection when a task-relevant face is presented at the cued location.     

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.     

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.     

The time required for perceptual (nonmotoric) processing in IOR

In an inhibition of return (IOR) paradigm, we used a threshold-tracking procedure combined with backward masking to measure the speed of perceptual processing in IOR independent of motoric factors. Instead of the conventional reaction time measure, this procedure yielded the critical exposure duration (DUR_c) that is required in order for a target to be identified reliably before the onset of a trailing mask. In Experiment 1, the facilitation effects conventionally found at short cue—target onset asynchrony (CTOA) were evidenced by shorter values of DUR_c at cued relative to uncued locations. Conversely, the retardation effects conventionally found at long CTOA were evidenced by correspondingly longer values of DUR_c. In Experiment 2, the DUR_c results strongly suggest that the directional reading bias previously observed in IOR studies is due, at least in part, to perceptual rather than motoric factors.     

On the strategic modulation of the time course of facilitation and inhibition of return

In studies of exogenous attentional orienting, response times for targets at previously cued locations are often longer than those for targets at previously uncued locations. This effect is known widely as inhibition of return (IOR). There has been debate as to whether IOR can be observed in discrimination as well as detection tasks. The experiments reported here confirm that IOR can be observed when target discrimination is required and that the cue-target interval at which IOR is observed is often longer in discrimination than in detection tasks. The results also demonstrate that the later emergence of IOR is related to perceptual discrimination rather than to response selection differences between discrimination and detection tasks. More difficult discrimination tasks lengthen the SOA at which IOR emerges. In contrast, increasing task difficulty by adding a distractor to the location opposite the target shortens the SOA at which IOR emerges. Together, the results reveal an adaptive interaction between exogenous and endogenous attentional systems, in which the action of the orienting (exogenous) system is modulated endogenously in accord with task demands.     

Somatosensory prior entry assessed with temporal order judgments and simultaneity judgments

Attention is central to perception, yet a clear understanding of how attention influences the latency of perception has proven surprisingly elusive. Recent research has indicated that spatially attended stimuli are perceived earlier than unattended stimuli across a range of sensory modalities-an effect termed prior entry. However, the method commonly used to measure this, the temporal order judgment (TOJ) task, has been criticized as susceptible to response bias, despite deliberate attempts to minimize such bias. A preferred alternative is the simultaneity judgment (SJ) task. We tested the prior-entry hypothesis for somatosensory stimuli using both a TOJ task (replicating an earlier experiment) and an SJ task. Prior-entry effects were found for both, though the effect was reduced in the SJ task. Additional experiments (TOJ and SJ) using visual cues established that the earlier perception of cued tactile targets does not result from intramodal sensory interactions between tactile cues and targets.     

Inhibition of return at multiple locations in visual search: When you see it and when you don't

Using a novel sequential task, Danziger, Kingstone, and Snyder (1998) provided conclusive evidence that inhibition of return (IOR) can co-occur at multiple non-contiguous locations. They argued that their findings depended crucially on the allocation of attention to cued locations. Specifically, they hypothesized that because subjects could not predict whether an onset event was a target or a non-target, all onset events had to be attended. As a result, non-targets were tagged with inhibition. The present study tested this hypothesis by manipulating whether target onset was predictable or not. In support of Danziger et al., three experiments revealed that multiple IOR was only observed when attention had to be directed to the cued locations. Interestingly, when attention did not need to be allocated to the cued locations, and multiple IOR was abolished, an IOR effect was still observed at the most recently cued location. Two possible accounts for this single IOR effect were presented for future investigation. One account attributes the effect to motor-based inhibition as hypothesized by Klein and Taylor (1994). The alternative account attributes the effect to weak attentional capture by a peripheral cue. Together the data support the view that multiple IOR is an attentional phenomenon and, as hypothesized by Tipper, Weaver, and Watson (1996), its presence or absence is largely under the control of the observer.     

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.     

Spatial distribution of visual attention: Perceptual sensitivity and response latency

Studies of the spatial distribution of visual attention have shown that attentional facilitation monotonically decreases in a graded fashion with increasing distance from an attended location. However, reaction time (RT) measures have typically shown broader gradients than have signal detection (SD) measures of perceptual sensitivity. It is not clear whether these differences have arisen because the stages of information processing indexed by RT measures are different from those indexed by SD measures, or whether these differences are due to methodological confounds in the SD studies. In the present set of experiments, the spatial distribution of attention was studied by using a luminance detection task in an endogenous cuing paradigm that was designed to permit accurate calculations of SD and RT measures for targets at cued and uncued locations. Subjects made target-present/absent decisions at one of six possible cued or uncued upper visual hemifield locations on each trial. The results from three experiments suggest that the differences between broad and focal attentional distributions are not the result of different stages of information processing indexed by RT measures as opposed to SD measures. Rather, the differing distributions appear to reflect variations in attentional allocation strategies induced by the perceptual requirements typical of RT paradigms as opposed to SD paradigms. These findings support numerous prior studies showing that spatial attention affects perceptual sensitivity and that the strategic allocation of attention is a highly flexible process.     

Inhibition of return is not detected using illusory line motion

Inhibition of return (IOR) is the name that has been assigned to a response time (RT) delay to a stimulus presented at a recently stimulated spatial location. A commonly held explanation for the origins of IOR is that perceptual processing is inhibited and that this inhibition translates into slower RT. Three experiments with 10 subjects were used to directly test this perceptual explanation. The first two experiments assessed the level of perceptual facilitation present in the IOR paradigm using the frequency and latency of illusory line motion judgments. Contrary to the predictions of the perceptual view, the line motion and RT measures revealed only speeded processing at previously stimulated spatial locations. Experiment 3 required a simple detection response and used the same stimulus and timing parameters as those in Experiments 1 and 2. IOR was present, replicating the recent finding that judgments based on perceptual qualities of the stimulus do not demonstrate a RT delay, whereas simple detection tasks do show RT inhibition at previously stimulated locations. These findings are discussed in relation to a number of hypotheses about the origin of the RT delay.     

Searching for inhibition of return in the rat using the covert orienting of attention task

Inhibition of return (IOR) is an important psychological construct describing inhibited responses to previously attended locations. In humans, it is investigated using Posner’s cueing paradigm. This paradigm requires central visual fixation and detection of cued stimuli to the left or right of the fixation point. Stimuli can be validly or invalidly cued, appearing in the same or opposite location to the cue. Although a rat version of the spatial cueing paradigm (the covert orienting of attention task) does exist, IOR has so far not been demonstrated. We therefore investigated whether IOR could be robustly demonstrated in adult male rats using the covert orienting of attention task. This task is conducted in holed wall operant chambers with the central three holes mimicking the set-up for Posner cueing. Across four samples of rats (overall n = 84), we manipulated the following task parameters: stimulus onset asynchronies (Experiments 1–3), cue brightness (Experiment 1b) and the presence of a central reorienting event (Experiment 4). In Experiment 1, we also investigated strain differences by comparing Lister Hooded rats to Sprague–Dawley rats. Although Lister Hooded rats briefly showed evidence of IOR (Experiment 1a, and see Online Resource 1 data), we were unable to replicate this finding in our other experiments using different samples of this strain. Taken together, our findings suggest that IOR cannot be robustly demonstrated in the rat using the covert orienting of attention task conducted in holed wall operant chambers.     

Promoting Novelty in Vision: Inhibition of Return Modulates Perceptual-Level Processing

To facilitate visual search of complex scenes, information arising from recently attended locations is subject to a selective inhibition in processing known as inhibition of return (IOR). Although the mechanisms of IOR remain unresolved, both motor and perceptual influences have been proposed based on reaction time (RT) studies. Here we report the results of two reflexive cuing studies in which signal detection methodology was employed to directly examine the effects of IOR on perception. IOR was found to be associated with a significant reduction in the accuracy of target discriminations at recently attended locations. Further, these effects of IOR on response accuracy were independent of whether emphasis was placed on the speed of responding. These results provide the first direct evidence that IOR can affect the perceptual quality of visual processing.     

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.