Investigating a two causes theory of inhibition of return

Saccadic landing positions reveal that eye movements are affected by distractor-based retrieval

Binding theories assume that stimulus and response features are integrated into short-lasting episodes and that upon repetition of any feature the whole episode is retrieved, thereby affecting performance. Such binding theories are nowadays the standard explanation for a wide range of action control tasks and aim to explain all simple actions, without making assumptions of effector specificity. Yet, it is unclear if eye movements are affected by integration and retrieval in the same way as manual responses. We asked participants to discriminate letters framed by irrelevant shapes. In Experiment 1, participants gave their responses with eye movements. Saccade landing positions showed a spatial error pattern consistent with predictions of binding theories. Saccadic latencies were not affected. In Experiment 2 with an increased interval between prime and probe, the error pattern diminished, again congruent with predictions of binding theories presuming quickly decaying retrieval effects. Experiment 3 used the same task as in Experiment 1, but participants executed their responses with manual key presses; again, we found a binding pattern in response accuracy. We conclude that eye movements and manual responses are affected by the same integration and retrieval processes, supporting the tacit assumption of binding theories to apply to any effector.

When does “inhibition of return” occur in spatial cueing tasks? Temporally disentangling multiple cue-triggered effects using response history and conditional accuracy analyses

Research on spatial cueing has shown that uninformative cues often facilitate mean response time (RT) performance in valid- compared to invalid-cueing conditions at short cue-target stimulus-onset-asynchronies (SOAs), and robustly generate a reversed or inhibitory cueing effect at longer SOAs that is widely known as inhibition-of-return (IOR). To study the within-trial time course of the IOR and facilitation effects we employ discrete-time hazard and conditional accuracy analyses to analyze the shapes of the RT and accuracy distributions measured in two experimental tasks. Our distributional analyses show that (a) IOR is present only from ~160 ms to ~280 ms after target onset for cue-target SOAs above ~200 ms, (b) facilitation does not precede IOR, but co-occurs with it, (c) the cue-triggered motor response activation is selectively and actively inhibited before target onset, (d) the presence of a central cue causes a temporary negative cueing effect in the conditional accuracy functions, (e) the IOR effect consists of a facilitatory and an inhibitory component when compared to central cueing, and (f) the within-trial time course of IOR is not affected much by the task employed (detection or localization). We conclude that the traditional mean performance measures conceal crucial information on behavioral dynamics in spatial cueing paradigms.

Exploring the temporal dynamics of inhibition of return using steady-state visual evoked potentials

Inhibition of return is characterized by delayed responses to previously attended locations when the interval between stimuli is long enough. The present study employed steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs) as a measure of attentional modulation to explore the nature and time course of input- and output-based inhibitory cueing mechanisms that each slow response times at previously stimulated locations under different experimental conditions. The neural effects of behavioral inhibition were examined by comparing post-cue SSVEPs between cued and uncued locations measured across two tasks that differed only in the response modality (saccadic or manual response to targets). Grand averages of SSVEP amplitudes for each condition showed a reduction in amplitude at cued locations in the window of 100-500 ms post-cue, revealing an early, short-term decrease in the responses of neurons that can be attributed to sensory adaptation, regardless of response modality. Because primary visual cortex has been found to be one of the major sources of SSVEP signals, the results suggest that the SSVEP modulations observed were caused by input-based inhibition that occurred in V1, or visual areas earlier than V1, as a consequence of reduced visual input activity at previously cued locations. No SSVEP modulations were observed in either response condition late in the cue-target interval, suggesting that neither late input- nor output-based IOR modulates SSVEPs. These findings provide further electrophysiological support for the theory of multiple mechanisms contributing to behavioral cueing effects.

The Time Course of Inhibition of Return: Evidence from Steady-State Visual Evoked Potentials

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slower responses to targets at a previously cued location than that at an uncued location. The time course of IOR has long been a topic of interest in the field. Investigations into the time course of IOR are typically performed by examining the magnitude of IOR under various cue-target onset asynchrony (CTOA) conditions. Therefore, the results are vulnerable to influence of factors that could affect the target processes (e.g., the frequency of the target type). In the present study, steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs) were implemented to directly take a continuous measurement of the degree to which cued location is processed, eliminating the influence mentioned above. The results indicate that, relative to the baseline interval (−400 to 0 ms), the presence of peripheral cues generated a typical two-stage effect on the SSVEP amplitude evoked by a 20 Hz flicker. Specifically, after the onset of the peripheral cues, the SSVEP amplitude first showed a significant increase, which subsequently turned into a significant inhibition effect after 200 ms. These results provide a continuous time course diagram of the cueing effect and suggest an effective way for future investigations of controlling the masking effects of target stimuli processing on IOR.

Stimulus-response incompatibility eliminates inhibitory cueing effects with saccadic but not manual responses

There are thought to be two forms of inhibition of return (IOR) depending on whether the oculomotor system is activated or suppressed. When saccades are allowed, output-based IOR is generated, whereas input-based IOR arises when saccades are prohibited. In a series of 4 experiments, we mixed or blocked compatible and incompatible trials with saccadic or manual responses to investigate whether cueing effects would follow the same pattern as those observed with more traditional peripheral onsets and central arrows. In all experiments, an uninformative cue was displayed, followed by a cue-back stimulus that was either red or green, indicating whether a compatible or incompatible response was required. The results showed that IOR was indeed observed for compatible responses in all tasks, whereas IOR was eliminated for incompatible trials-but only with saccadic responses. These findings indicate that the dissociation between input- and output-based forms of IOR depends on more than just oculomotor activation, providing further support for the existence of an inhibitory cueing effect that is distinct to the manual response modality.

Inhibitory cueing effects following manual and saccadic responses to arrow cues

With two cueing tasks, in the present study we examined output-based inhibitory cueing effects (ICEs) with manual responses to arrow targets following manual or saccadic responses to arrow cues. In all experiments, ICEs were observed when manual localization responses were required to both the cues and targets, but only when the cue-target onset asynchrony (CTOA) was 2,000 ms or longer. In contrast, when saccadic responses were made in response to the cues, ICEs were only observed with CTOAs of 2,000 ms or less-and only when an auditory cue-back signal was used. The present study also showed that the magnitude of ICEs following saccadic responses to arrow cues decreased with time, much like traditional inhibition-of-return effects. The magnitude of ICEs following manual responses to arrow cues, however, appeared later in time and had no sign of decreasing even 3 s after cue onset. These findings suggest that ICEs linked to skeletomotor activation do exist and that the ICEs evoked by oculomotor activation can carry over to the skeletomotor system.

Environment- and eye-centered inhibitory cueing effects are both observed after a methodological confound is eliminated

Inhibition of return (IOR), typically explored in cueing paradigms, is a performance cost associated with previously attended locations and has been suggested as a crucial attentional mechanism that biases orientation towards novelty. In their seminal IOR paper, Posner and Cohen (1984) showed that IOR is coded in spatiotopic or environment-centered coordinates. Recent studies, however, have consistently reported IOR effects in both spatiotopic and retinotopic (eye-centered) coordinates. One overlooked methodological confound of all previous studies is that the spatial gradient of IOR is not considered when selecting the baseline for estimating IOR effects. This methodological issue makes it difficult to tell if the IOR effects reported in previous studies were coded in retinotopic or spatiotopic coordinates, or in both. The present study addresses this issue with the incorporation of no-cue trials to a modified cueing paradigm in which the cue and target are always intervened by a gaze-shift. The results revealed that a) IOR is indeed coded in both spatiotopic and retinotopic coordinates, and b) the methodology of previous work may have underestimated spatiotopic and retinotopic IOR effects.

Does response selection contribute to inhibition of return?

Inhibition of return (IOR) means delayed responses for targets at a cued compared to targets at an uncued location. It is assumed to reflect delayed reallocation of attention toward a previously attended location. Besides an attentional mechanism, IOR could also be due to a cue-evoked inhibition to respond toward a cued target. In the present study, IOR with simple, compatible, and incompatible choice responses was compared and tracked by means of event-related EEG activity. IOR was amplified with simple responses but did not differ between compatible and incompatible responses. Attention-related ERP correlates were constant across cue target onset asynchronies as were, in part, behavioral effects. Early, rather sensory ERP components varied with time, reflecting sensory or attentional interaction of cue and target processing. None of these effects varied with response requirements, indicating that response selection does not contribute to IOR in manual choice response tasks.

In search of a reliable electrophysiological marker of oculomotor inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) operationalizes a behavioral phenomenon characterized by slower responding to cued, relative to uncued, targets. Two independent forms of IOR have been theorized: input-based IOR occurs when the oculomotor system is quiescent, while output-based IOR occurs when the oculomotor system is engaged. EEG studies forbidding eye movements have demonstrated that reductions of target-elicited P1 components are correlated with IOR magnitude, but when eye movements occur, P1 effects bear no relationship to behavior. We expand on this work by adapting the cueing paradigm and recording event-related potentials: IOR is caused by oculomotor responses to central arrows or peripheral onsets and measured by key presses to peripheral targets. Behavioral IOR is observed in both conditions, but P1 reductions are absent in the central arrow condition. By contrast, arrow and peripheral cues enhance Nd, especially over contralateral electrode sites.

Motor IOR revealed for reaching

Inhibition of return (IOR) is a spatial phenomenon that is thought to promote visual search functions by biasing attention and eye movements toward novel locations. Considerable research suggests distinct sensory and motor flavors of IOR, but it is not clear whether the motor type can affect responses other than eye movements. Most studies claiming to reveal motor IOR in the reaching control system have been confounded by their use of peripheral signals, which can invoke sensory rather than motor-based inhibitory effects. Other studies have used central signals to focus on motor, rather than sensory, effects in arm movements but have failed to observe IOR and have concluded that the motor form of IOR is restricted to the oculomotor system. Here, we show the first clear evidence that motor IOR can be observed for reaching movements when participants respond to consecutive central stimuli. This observation suggests that motor IOR serves a more general function than the facilitation of visual search, perhaps reducing the likelihood of engaging in repetitive behavior.

Spatial interactions between successive eye and arm movements: signal type matters

Spatial interactions between consecutive movements are often attributed to inhibition of return (IOR), a phenomenon in which responses to previously signalled locations are slower than responses to unsignalled locations. In two experiments using peripheral target signals offset by 0°, 90°, or 180°, we show that consecutive saccadic (Experiment 1) and reaching (Experiment 3) responses exhibit a monotonic pattern of reaction times consistent with the currently established spatial distribution of IOR. In contrast, in two experiments with central target signals (i.e., arrowheads pointing at target locations), we find a non-monotonic pattern of reaction times for saccades (Experiment 2) and reaching movements (Experiment 4). The difference in the patterns of results observed demonstrates different behavioral effects that depend on signal type. The pattern of results observed for central stimuli are consistent with a model in which neural adaptation is occurring within motor networks encoding movement direction in a distributed manner.