Inhibition of return: support for generality of the phenomenon

Time-dependent inhibition of covert shifts of attention

Visual transients can interrupt overt orienting by abolishing the execution of a planned eye movement due about 90 ms later, a phenomenon known as saccadic inhibition (SI). It is not known if the same inhibitory process might influence covert orienting in the absence of saccades, and consequently alter visual perception. In Experiment 1 (n = 14), we measured orientation discrimination during a covert orienting task in which an uninformative exogenous visual cue preceded the onset of an oriented probe by 140-290 ms. In half of the trials, the onset of the probe was accompanied by a brief irrelevant flash, a visual transient that would normally induce SI. We report a time-dependent inhibition of covert orienting in which the irrelevant flash impaired orientation discrimination accuracy when the probe followed the cue by 190 and 240 ms. The interference was more pronounced when the cue was incongruent with the probe location, suggesting an impact on the reorienting component of the attentional shift. In Experiment 2 (n = 12), we tested whether the inhibitory effect of the flash could occur within an earlier time range, or only within the later, reorienting range. We presented probes at congruent cue locations in a time window between 50 and 200 ms. Similar to Experiment 1, discrimination performance was altered at 200 ms after the cue. We suggest that covert attention may be susceptible to similar inhibitory mechanisms that generate SI, especially in later stages of attentional shifting (> 200 ms after a cue), typically associated with reorienting.

The Different Inhibition of Return (IOR) Effects of Emergency Managerial Experts and Novices: An Event-Related Potentials Study

Inhibition of return (IOR) is an important effect of attention. However, the IOR of emergency managerial experts is unknown. By employing emergency and natural scene pictures in expert-novice paradigm, the present study explored the neural activity underlying the IOR effects for emergency managerial experts and novices. In behavioral results, there were no differences of IOR effects between novices and emergency managerial experts, while the event-related potentials (ERPs) results were different between novices and experts. In Experiment 1 (novice group), ERPs results showed no any IOR was robust at both stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) of 200 ms and 400 ms. In Experiment 2 (expert group), ERPs results showed an enhanced N2 at SOA of 200 ms and attenuated P3 at cued location in the right parietal lobe and adjacent brain regions than uncued location at SOA of 200 ms. The findings of the two experiments showed that, relative to the novices, IOR for the emergency managerial experts was robust, and dominated in the right parietal lobe and adjacent brain regions, suggesting more flexible attentional processing and higher visual search efficiency of the emergency managerial experts. The findings indicate that the P3, possible N2, over the right parietal lobe and adjacent brain regions are the biological indicators for IOR elicited by post-cued emergency pictures for emergency managerial experts.

What causes IOR? Attention or perception? - manipulating cue and target luminance in either blocked or mixed condition

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the performance disadvantage when detecting a target presented at a previously cued location. The current paper contributes to the long-standing debate whether IOR is caused by attentional processing or perceptual processing. We present a series of four experiments which varied the cue luminance in mixed and blocked conditions. We hypothesised that if inhibition was initialized by an attentional process the size of IOR should not vary in the blocked condition as participants should be able to adapt to the level of cue luminance. However, if a perceptual process triggers inhibition both experimental manipulations should lead to varying levels of IOR. Indeed, we found evidence for the latter hypothesis. In addition, we also varied the target luminance in blocked and mixed condition. Both manipulations, cue luminance and target luminance, affected IOR in an additive fashion suggesting that the two stimuli affect human behaviour on different processing stages.

Inhibition of Return Affects Contrast Sensitivity

Inhibition of return (IOR)—a slow response to targets at recently attended locations, is believed to play an important role in guiding behaviour. In the attention literature it has been shown that attentional capture by an exogenous cue affects contrast sensitivity so that it alters the appearance of low-contrast stimuli. Despite a significant amount of work over the last quarter century on IOR, it is not yet clear whether IOR operates in the same way. In the current study we examined the effect of IOR on contrast sensitivity—a very early, low-level perceptual process. We found in both a detection task and an orientation discrimination task that lower contrast was needed to detect the stimulus (Experiment 1) and determine its orientation (Experiment 2) at the cued location than at the uncued location, at short cue–target delays, while higher contrast was needed at long delays—reflecting IOR. These results clearly demonstrate that IOR affects contrast sensitivity in a similar way as attentional capture does and suggest that IOR increases perceived contrast of an object in the uncued location.

Independent effects of endogenous and exogenous attention in touch

Endogenous and exogenous attention in touch have typically been investigated separately. Here we use a double-cueing paradigm manipulating both types of orienting in each trial. Bilateral endogenous cues induced long-lasting facilitation of endogenous attention up to 2 s. However, the exogenous cue only elicited an effect at short intervals. Our results favour a supramodal account of attention and this study provides new insight into how endogenous and exogenous attention operates in the tactile modality.

Reorienting attention and inhibition of return

In experiments examining inhibition of return (IOR), it is common practice to present a second cue at fixation during the cue-target interval. The purpose of this fixation cue is to reorient attention away from the cued location to ensure that the facilitative effects of spatial attention do not obscure IOR. However, despite their frequent use, relatively little is known about the relationship between fixation cues and IOR. In the present experiments, we examined the role of fixation cues by manipulating their presence in tasks that either did or did not require target identification. When the participants were required to either detect (Experiment 1A) or localize (Experiment 2A) a target, the magnitude of IOR was unaffected by the presence of a fixation cue. In contrast, when the participants were required to identify a target (Experiments 1B, 2B, and 3), IOR was observed only when a fixation cue was presented. This result was obtained regardless of the type of response that was required (two-alternative forced choice or go/no go). The effectiveness of the fixation cue in revealing IOR in these tasks is consistent with its putative role in reorienting attention away from the cued location.

Cortical expressions of inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) is a phenomenon that has been thought to be closely associated with attention mechanisms. In particular, it might arise from the operation of an attentional mechanism that facilitates visual search by inhibiting both covert attention and eye movements from returning to recently inspected locations. Although IOR has received a great deal of research interest, and mechanisms involving sensory, perceptual, and motor consequences have been proposed, no consensus has yet been reached regarding the stages of information processing at which IOR operates. In the present study, we utilized event-related potential (ERP) measures of visual and motor processes to investigate the processing changes underlying IOR. In three experiments, involving localization, detection, or Go-NoGo discrimination, participants were required to make manual responses to target stimuli. In each of these experiments, IOR was associated with a slowing of premotor processes as indicated by a modulation of the onset of the target-locked lateralized readiness potential (LRP). However, the duration of motor processes was not affected (response-locked LRP latency). Consistent with a perceptual locus of IOR, the amplitudes of the occipital ERP peaks were reduced for targets at cued locations relative to those at uncued locations. These and earlier results together provide considerable support for a model in which salience mechanisms that guide attention orienting are also affected by IOR, in that processing a stimulus at a location results in a lowering of its salience for future processing, making orienting to that location, and responding to targets presented there, more time consuming.

Individual Performance Based on Cognitive Experimental Measurements?

Inhibition of Return (IOR) is a mechanism whereby the attentional system favors novel locations by inhibiting already scanned ones. In spatial attention tasks, it commonly occurs when the interval between cue onset and target onset is longer than 300 ms. The positive difference between reactions in the valid condition and those in the invalid one shows that responses to target stimuli are slower following a valid cue than responses to target stimuli following an invalid cue. IOR is a very robust phenomenon at the group mean level; however, this study demonstrates that its standard error of measurement is extremely high, which seriously challenges any attempt to interpret an individual score as representing the characteristics of a subject's attention system. Furthermore, this reliability problem might diminish the likelihood of finding differences between groups and conditions. The study shows that these problems may be partially corrected by employing the back-to-center paradigm.

Visual selective attention in parkinson's disease: Dissociation of exogenous and endogenous inhibition

Impairment in the inhibitory mechanism of visual selective attention in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) is controversial. The present study sought to understand disparate findings in a manner analogous to the relative preservation of exogenously evoked movement and impairment of endogenously evoked movement. The authors examined inhibition of return (i.e., exogenously evoked inhibition; IOR) and negative priming (i.e., endogenously evoked inhibition; NP) in a group of 14 patients with PD and 14 healthy controls (HC). Unlike the HC, who demonstrated significant inhibition in both tasks, the group with PD demonstrated intact inhibition only in the IOR task. Dopamine replacement therapy did not affect performance. The findings are discussed within the context of a model that differentiates the essential involvement of the basal ganglia for endogenously evoked spatial inhibition.

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.

Involuntary attention and identification accuracy

Using the spatial cuing paradigm, Prinzmetal, McCool, and Park (2005) made the distinction between voluntary and involuntary attention. They claimed that although accuracy was affected by an informative spatial cue (which controls voluntary attention), it was not affected by a noninformative cue (which controls involuntary attention). We reevaluate two reports that assert that noninformative spatial cues affect accuracy. Dufour (1999) reported that a noninformative auditory cue enhanced visual identification in a conjunction search task. Klein and Dick (2002) reported that, in an RSVP task with visual cues, the cue also enhanced accuracy at short stimulus onset asynchronies. We found that Dufour's results were due to overt orienting (eye movements) rather than to covert attention. The results of Klein and Dick were due either to location uncertainty or to a confounding of the order of stimulus presentation and condition.

d-Amphetamine-induced enhancement of inhibitory mechanisms involved in visual search

The authors examined the effects of d-amphetamine on the ability to perform a cued target-detection task that measured inhibition of return (IOR). IOR is a reflexive inhibitory mechanism that delays attention from returning to a previously attended location and has been shown to increase the efficiency of a visual search. Adults (N=14) with a history of cocaine use performed the task under 4 doses of d-amphetamine (0, 10, 20, and 30 mg). The results showed active d-amphetamine doses increased the duration of IOR. By increasing the delay in returning attention to a previously attended location, d-amphetamine might reduce time spent searching previously attended locations, increasing the efficiency of visual searches.

Attention: Reaction Time and Accuracy Reveal Different Mechanisms

The authors propose that there are 2 different mechanisms whereby spatial cues capture attention. The voluntary mechanism is the strategic allocation of perceptual resources to the location most likely to contain the target. The involuntary mechanism is a reflexive orienting response that occurs even when the spatial cue does not indicate the probable target location. Voluntary attention enhances the perceptual representation of the stimulus in the cued location relative to other locations. Hence, voluntary attention affects performance in experiments designed around both accuracy and reaction time. Involuntary attention affects a decision as to which location should be responded to. Because involuntary attention does not change the perceptual representation, it affects performance in reaction time experiments but not accuracy experiments. The authors obtained this pattern of results in 4 different versions of the spatial cuing paradigm.

Competition Between Endogenous and Exogenous Orienting of Visual Attention

The relation between reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention was investigated with 4 experiments: a simple detection task, a localization task, a saccade toward the target task, and a target identification task in which discrimination difficulty was manipulated. Endogenous and exogenous orienting cues were presented in each trial and their validity was manipulated orthogonally to examine whether attention mechanisms are mediated by separate systems and whether they have additive and independent effects on visual detection and discrimination. The results showed that each orienting mechanism developed its typical and independent effect in every case except for the difficult identification task. A theoretical framework for understanding the relationship between endogenous and exogenous orienting of attention is proposed, tested, and confirmed.

Alcohol-induced impairment of inhibitory mechanisms involved in visual search

The present study examined the effects of alcohol on the ability to perform a cued target detection task that measured inhibition of return (IOR). IOR is a reflexive inhibitory mechanism that delays attention from returning to a previously attended location and has been shown to increase the efficiency of a visual search. Ten social drinkers performed the task under 3 alcohol doses: 0.0 g/kg (placebo), 0.45 g/kg, and 0.65 g/kg. The results showed both active alcohol doses reduced the IOR effect by shortening its duration of influence. The reduced duration of IOR under alcohol suggests that repeated searches in previously explored locations might be more likely under the drug, thereby reducing search efficiency.

Contribution of the primate superior colliculus to inhibition of return

The phenomenon of inhibition of return (IOR) has generated considerable interest in cognitive neuroscience because of its putative functional role in visual search, that of placing inhibitory tags on objects that have been recently inspected so as to direct further search to novel items. Many behavioral parameters of this phenomenon have been clearly delineated, and based on indirect but converging evidence, the widely held consensus is that the midbrain superior colliculus (SC) is involved in the generation of IOR. We had previously trained monkeys on a saccadic IOR task and showed that they displayed IOR in a manner similar to that observed in humans. Here we recorded the activity of single neurons in the superficial and intermediate layers of the SC while the monkeys performed this IOR task. We found that when the target was presented at a previously cued location, the stimulus-related response was attenuated and the magnitude of this response was correlated with subsequent saccadic reaction times. Surprisingly, this observed attenuation of activity during IOR was not caused by active inhibition of these neurons because (a) they were, in fact, more active following the presentation of the cue in their response field, and (b) when we repeated the same experiment while using the saccadic response time induced by electrical micro-stimulation of the SC to judge the level of excitability of the SC circuitry during the IOR task, we found faster saccades were elicited from the cued location. Our findings demonstrate that the primate SC participates in the expression of IOR; however, the SC is not the site of the inhibition. Instead, the reduced activity in the SC reflects a signal reduction that has taken place upstream.

Inhibition of return for target discriminations: the effect of repeating discriminated and irrelevant stimulus dimensions

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slowed reaction times when a target repeats in the same location as a preceding stimulus. In four experiments, the participants were presented with two successive stimuli, S1 and S2. In Experiments 1 and 2, the participants made a speeded discrimination of the identity or orientation of both S1 and S2 (Experiment 1) or of S2 only (Experiment 2). An IOR effect occurred for the repetition of stimulus location, but a facilitatory effect occurred if the stimulus remained unchanged or if an overt response was repeated. In Experiments 3 and 4, the participants localized S1 and S2 (Experiment 3) or S2 only (Experiment 4) to the left or right of center. In this case, repeating the same stimulus had no effect: IOR occurred any time stimulus location repeated. These results demonstrate that the expression of IOR is modulated by the repetition of a target object, but only when the task requires the discrimination of that object; when no discrimination is required, IOR is unaffected.