Effects of Unilateral Distractors: A Comparison of Eye Movement and Key Press Responses

Age differences in inhibitory and working memory functioning: limited evidence of system interactions

Debate persists regarding the nature of age-related deficits in inhibition, and whether inhibitory functioning depends on working memory systems. The current research aimed to measure age-related differences in inhibition and working memory, characterize the relationship between inhibitory functions and working memory performance, and determine how these relationships are affected by age. Toward these ends, we measured performance on a range of established paradigms in 60 young adults (18-30 years) and 60 older adults (60-88 years). Our findings support age-related increases in reflexive inhibition (based on the fixation offset effect and inhibition of return) and age-related decrements in volitional inhibition (based on several paradigms: antisaccade, Stroop, flanker, and Simon). This evidence of stronger reflexive inhibition combined with weaker volitional inhibition suggests that age-related deterioration of cortical structures may allow subcortical structures to operate less controlled. Regarding working memory, older adults had lower backward digit scores and lower forward and backward spatial scores. However, of the 32 analyses (16 in each age group) that tested for dependence of inhibitory functioning on working memory functioning, only one (in young adults) indicated that inhibition performance significantly depended on working memory performance. These results indicate that inhibition and working memory function largely independently in both age groups, and age-related working memory difficulties cannot account for age-related declines in inhibitory control.

Attention and control of manual responses in cognitive conflict: Findings from TMS perturbation studies

The article reviews studies that have used the perturbation approach of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) to assess the control of attention and manual response selection in conflict situations as elicited in three established paradigms: the Simon paradigm, the Flanker paradigm, and the Stroop paradigm. After describing the experimental conflict paradigms and briefly introducing TMS we review evidence for the involvement of different frontal and parietal cortical regions in the control of attention and response selection. For example, areas such as the frontal eye field (FEF) appear to significantly contribute to the encoding of spatial attributes of stimuli and areas of the parietal cortex, such as angular gyrus (AG), mediate the allocation of spatial attention and orienting. The dorsal medial frontal cortex (dMFC), supramarginal gyrus (SMG) and pre-supplementary motor area (pre-SMA) appear to be more related to response-related aspects of the conflicts (i.e., enhancement of signals related to correct movements, transformation of spatial information action codes, resolution of response selection conflicts, respectively). The reviewed studies illustrate crucial benefits but also limitations of TMS as well as the value of the combination of TMS with other methods. We suggest topics and approaches for future studies.

Influence of Stimulus Type on Effects of Flanker, Flanker Position, and Trial Sequence in a Saccadic Eye Movement Task

Using the flanker paradigm in a task requiring eye movement responses, we examined how stimulus type (arrows vs. letters) modulated effects of flanker and flanker position. Further, we examined trial sequence effects and the impact of stimulus type on these effects. Participants responded to a central target with a left- or rightward saccade. We reasoned that arrows, being overlearned symbols of direction, are processed with less effort and are therefore linked more easily to a direction and a required response than are letters. The main findings demonstrate that (a) flanker effects were stronger for arrows than for letters, (b) flanker position more strongly modulated the flanker effect for letters than for arrows, and (c) trial sequence effects partly differed between the two stimulus types. We discuss these findings in the context of a more automatic and effortless processing of arrow relative to letter stimuli.

Evidence inhibition responds reactively to the salience of distracting information during focused attention

Along with target amplification, distractor inhibition is regarded as a major contributor to selective attention. Some theories suggest that the strength of inhibitory processing is proportional to the salience of the distractor (i.e., inhibition reacts to the distractor intensity). Other theories suggest that the strength of inhibitory processing does not depend on the salience of the distractor (i.e., inhibition does not react to the distractor intensity). The present study aimed to elucidate the relationship between the intensity of a distractor and its subsequent inhibition during focused attention. A flanker task with a variable distractor-target stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) was used to measure both distractor interference and distractor inhibition. We manipulated the intensity of the distractor in two separate ways, by varying its distance from the target (Experiment 1) and by varying its brightness (Experiment 2). The results indicate that more intense distractors were associated with both increased interference and stronger distractor inhibition. The latter outcome provides novel support for the reactive inhibition hypothesis, which posits that inhibition reacts to the strength of distractor input, such that more salient distractors elicit stronger inhibition.

Identity-based inhibitory processing during focused attention

Recent data suggest that the operating principles governing inhibition of distractor-related activity may deviate from dominant models describing inhibitory processing during selective attention. Here we aimed to gain a better understanding of these data in order to determine whether they actually defy premises of current models. In addition to providing evidence against noninhibitory accounts of the data (see especially Experiment 6), the results support three main novel findings that challenge current theories. First, the data provide evidence that inhibition overpowered excitation from ongoing external input (Experiments 1-4), which suggests that inhibitory control processes are more powerful than current models indicate. Second, negative effects emerged even when targets appeared alone (Experiment 5), which suggests that selection does not play an essential role in triggering inhibitory processing. Third, relatively early distractor-related activity was affected, which supports a role for inhibition prior to action control (Experiment 3). These findings suggest a need to revise current models describing inhibition of distracting information during selective attention.

Famous faces demand attention due to reduced inhibitory processing

People have particular difficulty ignoring distractors that depict faces. This phenomenon has been attributed to the high level of biological significance that faces carry. The current study aimed to elucidate the mechanism by which faces gain processing priority. We used a focused attention paradigm that tracks the influence of a distractor over time and provides a measure of inhibitory processing. Upright famous faces served as test stimuli and inverted versions of the faces as well as upright non-face objects served as control stimuli. The results revealed that although all of the stimuli elicited similar levels of distraction, only inverted distractor faces and non-face objects elicited inhibitory effects. The lack of inhibitory effects for upright famous faces provides novel evidence that reduced inhibitory processing underlies the mandatory nature of face processing.