Inhibition of return and response repetition within and between modalities

Stimulus-response congruency effects depend on quality of perceptual evidence: A diffusion model account

Individuals often need to make quick decisions based on incomplete or "noisy" information. This requires the coordination of attentional, perceptual, cognitive, and behavioral mechanisms. This poses a challenge for isolating the unique effects of each subprocess from behavioral data, which reflect the summation of all subprocesses combined. Sequential sampling models offer a more detailed examination of behavioral data, enabling us to separate decisional and non-decisional processes at play in a task. Participants were required to identify briefly presented shapes while perceptual (duration, size, location) and response features (location-congruent/-incongruent/-neutral) of the task were manipulated. The diffusion model (Ratcliff, 1978) was used to dissociate decisional and executive processes in the task. In Experiment 1, stimuli were presented for either 20 or 80 ms to the left or right of a central fixation while response keys were positioned horizontally. In Experiment 2, stimulus size was manipulated rather than duration. In Experiment 3, response keys were positioned vertically. Results showed a duration x response mapping interaction. Participants displayed stimulus-response (S-R) congruency biases only on short-duration trials. This effect was observed for both horizontal and vertical response key mappings. Stimulus size affected participant response speed, but did not elicit S-R congruency biases. The present findings show that when perceptual quality of evidence is poor, individuals rely more heavily on spatial-motor mechanisms when making speeded choice decisions. Furthermore, positioning response keys vertically is insufficient to eliminate S-R congruency effects. Diffusion model parameters are presented and implications of the model are discussed.

Spatial Inhibition of Return Affected by Self-Prioritization Effect in Three-Dimensional Space

Spatial inhibition of return (IOR) being affected by the self-prioritization effect (SPE) in a two-dimensional plane has been well documented. However, it remains unknown how the spatial IOR interacts with the SPE in three-dimensional (3D) space. By constructing a virtual 3D environment, Posner's classically two-dimensional cue-target paradigm was applied to a 3D space. Participants first associated labels for themselves, their best friends, and strangers with geometric shapes in a shape-label matching task, then performed Experiment 1 (referential information appeared as the cue label) and Experiment 2 (referential information appeared as the target label) to investigate whether the IOR effect could be influenced by the SPE in 3D space. This study showed that when the cue was temporarily established with a self-referential shape and appeared in far space, the IOR effect was the smallest. When the target was temporarily established with a self-referential shape and appeared in near space, the IOR effect disappeared. This study suggests that the IOR effect was affected by the SPE when attention was oriented or reoriented in 3D space and that the IOR effect disappeared or decreased when affected by the SPE in 3D space.

How modality processing differences affect cross-modal nonspatial repetition inhibition

Although previous studies have demonstrated that identity-based repetition inhibition could occur across modalities, whether the modality processing difference or attentional set caused differences between the unimodal and cross-modal conditions was unknown. To investigate this question in both visual-auditory and auditory-visual patterns, the present study adopted a cross-modal "prime-neutral cue-target" priming paradigm, in which a neutral event was presented between the prime and the target. The relationships of the identities and modalities between the prime and the target were manipulated such that their modalities and identities could either be the same or different. Our results showed that (a) identity-based repetition inhibition occurred under both unimodal and cross-modal conditions, (b) response times to auditory targets were slower than those to visual targets, and (c) identity-based repetition inhibition was larger while discriminating repeated auditory targets than visual targets regardless of whether the prime was visual or auditory. These results suggested that nonspatial repetition inhibition can occur across modalities and that it was not in general larger or smaller than unimodal repetition inhibition, as this difference was due to modality processing differences.

Different visual and auditory latencies affect cross-modal non-spatial repetition inhibition

The present study examined the effect of different latencies for processing visual and auditory stimuli in cross-modal non-spatial repetition inhibition. In two experiments, the cue validity of modality and identity between the prime and the target was manipulated in a "prime-neutral cue-target" paradigm. A distinct neutral event was presented after the prime and before the onset of the target. The prime probe was visual in Experiment 1 and auditory in Experiment 2. The results in both experiments showed that RTs for identity-cued trials were significantly slower than RTs for identity-cued trials regardless of whether the modality of the target was visual or auditory. In addition, RTs for visual trials were significantly faster than RTs for auditory trials, indicating different latencies of processing visual and auditory stimuli. This latency difference affects cross-modal non-spatial repetition inhibition in two aspects: 1) creating a new representation (identity uncued) that is delivered via visual modality is easier under audio-visual conditions, and 2) retrieving an inhibited representation (identity cued) that is delivered via auditory modality is more difficult under visual-audio conditions. We propose that cross-modal non-spatial repetition inhibition, which is distinct from unimodal repetition inhibition, can be easily influenced by different latencies of processing visual and auditory stimuli.

Bimodal-divided attention attenuates visually induced inhibition of return with audiovisual targets

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the slower response to a target appearing at a previously attended location in a cue-target paradigm. It has been greatly explored in the visual or auditory modality. This study investigates differences between the IOR of audiovisual targets and the IOR of visual targets under conditions of modality-specific selective attention (Experiment 1) and divided-modalities attention (Experiment 2). We employed an exogenous spatial cueing paradigm and manipulated the modalities of targets, including visual, auditory, or audiovisual modalities. The participants were asked to detect targets in visual modality or both visual and auditory modalities, which were presented on the same (cued) or opposite (uncued) side as the preceding visual peripheral cues. In Experiment 1, we found the comparable IOR with visual and audiovisual targets when participants were asked to selectively focus on visual modality. In Experiment 2, however, there was a smaller magnitude of IOR with audiovisual targets as compared with visual targets when paying attention to both visual and auditory modalities. We also observed a reduced multisensory response enhancement effect and race model inequality violation at cued locations relative to uncued locations. These results provide the first evidence of the IOR with audiovisual targets. Furthermore, IOR with audiovisual targets decreases when paying attention to both modalities. The interaction between exogenous spatial attention and audiovisual integration is discussed.

Reflexive attention in touch: an investigation of event related potentials and behavioural responses

Exogenous attention has been extensively studied in vision but little is known about its behavioural and neural correlates in touch. To investigate this, non-informative tactile cues were followed after 800 ms by tactile targets and participants either detected targets or discriminated their location. Responses were slowed for targets at cued compared to uncued locations (i.e. inhibition of return (IOR)) only in the detection task. Concurrently recorded ERPs showed enhanced negativity for targets at uncued compared to cued locations at the N80 component and this modulation overlapped with the P100 component but only for the detection task indicating IOR may, if anything, be linked to attentional modulations at the P100. Further, cue-target interval analysis showed an enhanced anterior negativity contralateral to the cue side in both tasks, analogous to the anterior directed attention negativity (ADAN) previously only reported during endogenous orienting.

Investigating the time course of tactile reflexive attention using a non-spatial discrimination task

Peripheral cues are thought to facilitate responses to stimuli presented at the same location because they lead to exogenous attention shifts. Facilitation has been observed in numerous studies of visual and auditory attention, but there have been only four demonstrations of tactile facilitation, all in studies with potential confounds. Three studies used a spatial (finger versus thumb) discrimination task, where the cue could have provided a spatial framework that might have assisted the discrimination of subsequent targets presented on the same side as the cue. The final study circumvented this problem by using a non-spatial discrimination; however, the cues were informative and interspersed with visual cues which may have affected the attentional effects observed. In the current study, therefore, we used a non-spatial tactile frequency discrimination task following a non-informative tactile white noise cue. When the target was presented 150 ms after the cue, we observed faster discrimination responses to targets presented on the same side compared to the opposite side as the cue; by 1000 ms, responses were significantly faster to targets presented on the opposite side to the cue. Thus, we demonstrated that tactile attentional facilitation can be observed in a non-spatial discrimination task, under unimodal conditions and with entirely non-predictive cues. Furthermore, we provide the first demonstration of significant tactile facilitation and tactile inhibition of return within a single experiment.

Microsaccadic response during inhibition of return in a target–target paradigm

This study examined the relationship between inhibition of return (IOR) in covert orienting and microsaccade statistics. Unlike a previous study [Galfano, G., Betta, E., & Turatto, M. (2004)], IOR was assessed by means of a target-target paradigm, and microsaccade dynamics were monitored as a function of both the first and the second visual event. In line with what has been reported with a cue-target paradigm, a significant directional modulation was observed opposite to the first visual event. Because participants were to respond to any stimulus, this rules out the possibility that the modulation resulted from a generic motor inhibition, showing instead that it is peculiarly coupled to the oculomotor system. Importantly, after the second visual event, a different response was observed in microsaccade orientation, whose direction critically depended of whether the second visual event appeared at the same location as the first visual event. The results are consistent with the notion that IOR is composed of both attentional and oculomotor components, and challenge the view that covert orienting paradigms engage the attentional component in isolation.

Inhibition of return in cue–target and target–target tasks

Inhibition of return (IOR), the term given for the slowing of a response to a target that appeared at the same location as a previously presented stimulus, has been studied with both target-target (TT; participants respond to each successive event) and cue-target (CT; participants only respond to the second of two events) tasks. Although both tasks have been used to examine the processes and characteristics of IOR, few studies have been conducted to understand if there are any differences in the processes that underlie the IOR that results from ignoring (CT paradigm) or responding to (TT paradigm) the first stimulus. The purpose of the present study was to examine the notion that IOR found in TT tasks represents "true" IOR whereas IOR found in CT tasks consist of both "true" IOR and response inhibition (Coward et al. in Exp Brain Res 155:124-128, 2004). Consistent with the pattern of effects found by Coward et al. (Exp Brain Res 155:124-128, 2004), IOR was larger in the CT task than in the TT task when a single detection response was required (Experiment 1). However, when participants completed one of two spatially-directed responses (rapid aiming movement to the location of the target stimulus), IOR effects from the CT and TT tasks were equal in magnitude (Experiment 2). Rather than CT tasks having an additional response inhibition component, these results suggest that TT tasks may show less of an inhibitory effect because of a facilitatory response repetition effect.