Inhibition of return promotes stop-signal inhibition by delaying responses

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.

Do Emotional Faces Affect Inhibition of Return? An ERP Study

Inhibition of Return (IOR) refers to an individual's slowed localization or discrimination performance for targets that appear in previously cued versus uncued location after a relatively long delay after cue (∼300-500 ms). The current study adopted a cue-target paradigm and used behavioral and event-related potential (ERP) measures to investigate whether IOR would be modulated by emotional faces during an emotion recognition task. For reaction time measure, we found IOR effect and the magnitude of IOR effect were comparable for fearful face target and neutral face target. For ERP measures, valid cues were associated with smaller P1 and larger N1 waveform than that for invalid cues. Fearful faces were associated with a larger N170 than neutral faces. The onset latency of the stimulus-locked lateralised readiness potential (LRP) in the valid cue condition was longer than that in the invalid cue condition, while there was no significant difference on the onset latency of the response-locked LRP between the valid cue and invalid cue condition. These results support the notion that, regardless the emotion component of the stimulus, the inhibitory bias of attention to previous visited location before response contributes to the IOR.

Inhibition of Return Is Modulated by Negative Stimuli: Evidence from Subliminal Perception

Inhibition of return (IOR) is considered as a “blindness mechanism” that emotional stimuli have no impact on it. Most previous studies suggested that IOR was not modulated by emotional cues. However, one key question they ignored was that only supraliminal presentation of emotional stimuli was used in their experiments. The present experiment is aimed at exploring the possible interaction between the IOR effect and subliminal emotional process. We manipulated three different kinds of valence strength of negative stimuli (high negative, HN; moderate negative, MN; low negative, LN) which were presented under the subliminal perception level and an event-related potentials (ERPs) recording was adopted. The results showed that, compared to MN and HN, the IOR effect triggered by peripheral cues was more significant for LN with aspects of behavioral and electrophysiological data (a reduction P1 effect, more negative on cued trials than on uncued trials for both early posterior Nd and Nd components). This indicated that IOR can be modulated by emotionally relevant stimuli. The automatic processing that was triggered by subliminally negative stimuli of peripheral cues had an influence on the shifting of spatial attention that was triggered by IOR. These two mechanisms may occur in the perceptual stage simultaneously.

Is Inhibition of Return Modulated by Involuntary Orienting of Spatial Attention: An ERP Study

Inhibition of return (IOR) is a mechanism that indicates individuals’ faster responses or higher accuracy to targets appearing in the novel location relative to the cued location. According to the “reorienting hypothesis,” disengagement from the cued location is necessary for the generation of IOR. However, more and more studies have questioned this theory because of dissociation between voluntary or involuntary spatial orienting and the IOR effect. To further explore the “reorienting hypothesis” of IOR, the present experiment employed an atypical cue-target paradigm which combined a spatially non-predictive peripheral cue that was presumed to trigger IOR with a spatially non-predictive central cue that was used to reflexively trigger a shift of attention. The results showed that a significant IOR effect did not interact with automatic spatial orienting as measured in mean RTs and accuracy as well as the Nd component. These findings suggested that the IOR effect triggered by peripheral cue was independent of automatic orienting generated by a central cue. Therefore, the present study provided evidence from location task and neural aspects, which again challenged the “reorienting hypothesis” of IOR.

When do fearful faces override inhibition of return?

Inhibition of return (IOR) occurs when more than about 300 ms elapses between the cue and the target in atypical peripheral cueing task: reaction times (RTs) become longer when the cue and target locations are the same versus different. IOR could serve the adaptive role of optimizing visual search by discouraging the re-inspection of previously attended locations. As such, IOR should not reduce our chances of noticing relevant event information and emotional stimuli, in particular. However, previous studies have led to inconsistent results. The present study offers a systematic investigation of the conditions under which target fearful faces can modulate either the magnitude or the time course of the IOR effect. Notably, we manipulated the depth of facial processing required to perform the task and/or the task relevance of the facial expressions. When participants localized target faces (Experiment 1) or discriminated them from non-face stimuli (Experiment 2), their emotional expression had no impact on IOR whatsoever. However, IOR occurred later for fearful versus neutral faces when the participants performed emotion (Experiment 3) or gender (Experiment 4) discrimination tasks. These findings are discussed with regard to the mechanisms responsible for IOR and to the processing of emotional facial expressions.

Effects of display complexity on location and feature inhibition

Inhibition of return refers to the lengthening of reaction times (RTs) to a target when a preceding stimulus has occupied the same location in space. Recently, we observed a robust inhibitory effect for color and shape in moderately complex displays: It is more difficult to detect a target with a particular nonspatial attribute if a stimulus with the same attribute was recently the focus of attention. Such nonspatial inhibitory effects have not generally been found in simpler displays. In the present study, we test how location-based and nonspatial inhibitory effects vary as a function of display complexity (eight, six, four, and two locations). The results demonstrated that (1) location-based inhibition effects were much stronger in more complex displays, whereas the nonspatial inhibition was only slightly stronger in more complex displays; (2) nonspatial inhibitory effects emerged at longer stimulus onset asynchronies than did location-based effects; and (3) nonspatial inhibition appeared only when cues and targets occurred in the same locations, confirming that pure feature repetition does not produce a cost. Taken together, the results are consistent with perceptual processes based on object files that are organized by spatial location. Using somewhat more complex displays than are most commonly employed provides a more sensitive method for observing the role of inhibitory processes in facilitating visual search. In addition, using a relatively wide set of cue-target timing relationships is necessary in order to clearly see how inhibitory effects operate.

Larger IOR effects following forget than following remember instructions depend on exogenous attentional withdrawal and target localization

When words are onset in the visual periphery, inhibition of return (IOR) for a subsequent target is larger when those words receive an intervening forget instruction than when they receive a remember instruction Taylor (Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 613-629, 2005). The present study manipulated the allocation of endogenous and exogenous attention to assess the source of the forget > remember IOR difference. We determined that the forget > remember IOR difference likely arises from the differential withdrawal of exogenous-rather than endogenous-attention. Furthermore, this forget > remember IOR difference occurs only when a spatially compatible localization response is required; it does not occur when a simple detection response or a perceptual discrimination is required. This suggests that the forget > remember difference in the magnitude of IOR is not due to differences in perceptual/attentional processing. Instead, an instruction to remember or forget biases spatial responses in accordance with whether a location has previously contained relevant or irrelevant information. We suggest that directed forgetting in an item-method paradigm is not accomplished by changes in attention; rather, the changes in attention are coincident with changes in memory and may serve to bias later responses away from a source of unreliable information.

Visualizing the temporal dynamics of spatial information processing responsible for the Simon effect and its amplification by inhibition of return

Research has shown that the Simon effect is larger for targets suffering from inhibition of return (IOR). We used speed-accuracy trade-off (SAT) methodology to explore the temporal dynamics underlying this interaction. In Experiment 1, a new method for sorting the data was used to reveal a monotonic decay in the impact of task-irrelevant location information that is responsible for the Simon effect. In Experiment 2, we show that IOR delays both task-relevant identity and task-irrelevant location codes; a relatively longer delay for location than identity codes accounts for the effect of IOR on the Simon effect. When location information was made task-relevant in Experiment 3, IOR delayed the accumulation of this information by about the same amount as when location was irrelevant. The results suggest that IOR, therefore, has a greater effect on location than identity information.

Nonattentional effects of nonpredictive central cues

Recent evidence suggests that nonpredictive gaze, hand, arrow, and peripheral cues elicit shifts of reflexive attention. In the present article, we address whether these cues also influence the decision criterion in a go/no-go task. Nonpredictive central gaze and hand cues pointed toward or away from the location of an imminent target. Responses to the targets were faster, and false alarm errors were more frequent, when cues pointed toward the target than when they were directed away from it. Although a similar pattern was observed with nonpredictive arrow cues, it was not seen with nonpredictive peripheral cues. These results suggest that nonpredictive central cues not only affect attention, but also bias decision processes.

Puppets, robots, critics, and actors within a taxonomy of attention for developmental disorders

This review proposes a new taxonomy of automatic and controlled attention. The taxonomy distinguishes among the role of the attendee (puppet and robot, critic and actor), the attention process (stimulus orienting vs. response control), and the attention operation (activation vs. inhibition vs. adjustment), and identifies cognitive phenotypes by which attention is overtly expressed. We apply the taxonomy to four childhood attention disorders: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, spina bifida meningomyelocele, traumatic brain injury, and acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Variations in attention are related to specific brain regions that support normal attention processes when intact, and produce disordered attention when impaired. The taxonomy explains group differences in behavioral inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsiveness, as well as medication response. We also discuss issues relevant to theories of the cognitive and neural architecture of attention: functional dissociations within and between automatic and controlled attention; the relative importance of type of brain damage and developmental timing to attention profile; cognitive-energetic models of attention and white matter damage; temporal processing deficits, attention deficits and cerebellar damage; and the issue of cognitive phenotypes as candidate endophenotypes.

Inhibition of return for expected and unexpected targets

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slower reaction times (RTs) to targets that occur in the same, rather than in a different, location as a preceding onset cue. The present study examined IOR for expected (likely) and unexpected (unlikely) targets under conditions in which stimulus-response (S-R) expectancies were generated on a trial-by-trial basis or maintained across a block of trials. Three boxes were aligned along the vertical midline. In Experiments 1 and 2, the appearance of a cue in the upper or lower box was a signal to generate an expectancy about the most likely color of an impending discrimination target. In Experiment 3, one target color was more likely than another across a block of trials. In all cases, cue location did not predict target location. When S-R expectancies were generated on a trial-by-trial basis, IOR occurred for Unlikely targets but not for Likely targets; this was true across a range of cue-target stimulus onset asynchronies. In contrast, when S-R expectancies were maintained over a block of trials, IOR was larger for Likely than for Unlikely targets. These findings reveal a critical interaction of S-R expectancies with IOR. This interaction not only demonstrates the modulation of IOR by cognitive expectancies, but in doing so also provides evidence that is consistent with the view that IOR reflects a conservative response bias.