Stimulus-response probability and inhibition of return

The Active Suppression of a Distractor's Location Can Be Elusive

Our visual system is inundated with distracting objects that vie for our attention. While visual attention selects relevant information, inhibitory mechanisms might be useful to suppress the locations occupied by irrelevant distractors. Yet, there is a dearth of behavioral evidence for the active suppression of a distractor's location (ASDL) using central cues that provide preliminary information about a distractor's location. In the first two experiments, we attempt to conceptually replicate, using an online platform, experiments that provide evidence of the ASDL. We replicate the distractor cueing effect in a localization task (Experiment 1) wherein responses to targets were faster when a central arrow cued the location of an impending distractor than an empty location. This effect was larger in the first block of trials than it was in the second. In a discrimination task (Experiment 2), unlike previous studies, we found no evidence for an effect of distractor cueing. In Experiment 3, we replaced the central arrow cues with central number cues because arrow cues may elicit a symbolic shift of attention that might offset the ASDL. Once again, the best model was one in which the distractor cueing effect was absent. We replicate these failures to find evidence of the ASDL in two more experiments. The results suggest that the ASDL can be elusive and may be tied to the response system, not attention.

When do response-related episodic retrieval effects co-occur with inhibition of return?

At some point, spatial priming effects more faithfully reflect response selection processes than they do attentional orienting or sensory processes. Findings from the spatial cueing literature suggest that two factors may be critical: (1) the amount of identity processing that is required in order to respond correctly (feature-based response hypothesis), and (2) the amount of spatial processing that is required in order to respond correctly (space-based response hypothesis). To test the first hypothesis, we manipulated whether observers made single keypress detection or two-choice localization responses to serially presented stimuli in peripheral vision and whether stimulus identity information processing was necessary before responding. Responses were always slowest when the target location repeated, consistent with an attentional orienting bias independent of keypress responding (i.e., inhibition of return; IOR). The localization procedure revealed a subtle additional cost for changing the target location and repeating a response, consistent with a response-related episodic retrieval effect predicted by the Theory of Event Coding (TEC). Neither effect was modulated by the need to discriminate features. To test the second hypothesis, we made spatial processing indispensable to response selection by requiring a decision between a detection and localization response, depending on where the target appeared. IOR was eliminated for detection, but not localization, responses, consistent with the TEC. Collectively, the findings suggest that the amount of space-based, but not feature-based, processing that is required to determine a response is responsible for the response retrieval effects that can co-occur with IOR.

Unraveling Causal Mechanisms of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Visuospatial Attention with Non-invasive Brain Stimulation

Attention is a process of selection that allows us to intelligently navigate the abundance of information in our world. Attention can be either directed voluntarily based on internal goals-"top-down" or goal-directed attention-or captured automatically, by salient stimuli-"bottom-up" or stimulus-driven attention. Do these two modes of attention control arise from same or different brain circuits? Do they share similar or distinct neural mechanisms? In this review, we explore this dichotomy between the neural bases of top-down and bottom-up attention control, with a special emphasis on insights gained from non-invasive neurostimulation techniques, specifically, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). TMS enables spatially focal and temporally precise manipulation of brain activity. We explore a significant literature devoted to investigating the role of fronto-parietal brain regions in top-down and bottom-up attention with TMS, and highlight key areas of convergence and debate. We also discuss recent advances in combinatorial paradigms that combine TMS with other imaging modalities, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging or electroencephalography. These paradigms are beginning to bridge essential gaps in our understanding of the neural pathways by which TMS affects behavior, and will prove invaluable for unraveling mechanisms of attention control, both in health and in disease.

Using Rescorla's truly random control condition to measure truly exogenous covert orienting

Studies of exogenous covert orienting use peripheral cues (stimuli) that are spatially uninformative about the locations of subsequent targets. When the time course of the cue's influence on performance is explored (by varying the cue target onset asynchrony; CTOA), a biphasic pattern is usually seen with better performance at the cued location when the CTOA is short (typically attributed to attentional capture) and worse performance at the cued location when the CTOA is long (attributed to inhibition of return). However, while spatially uninformative, these cues (even when a nonaging foreperiod is used) entail a temporal contingency with the subsequent target. Consequently, this so-called capture may reflect an unintended consequence of endogenous allocation of temporal attention. Following Lawrence and Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 560-572, 2013) we used Rescorla's (Psychological Review, 74, 71-80, 1967) truly random control condition to ensure that the spatially uninformative peripheral stimuli were temporally completely uninformative. Even such completely uninformative peripheral stimuli generated the prototypical biphasic pattern.

Prism Adaptation Alters Electrophysiological Markers of Attentional Processes in the Healthy Brain

Neglect patients typically show a rightward attentional orienting bias and a strong disengagement deficit, such that they are especially slow in responding to left-sided targets after right-sided cues (Posner et al., 1984). Prism adaptation (PA) can reduce diverse debilitating neglect symptoms and it has been hypothesized that PA's effects are so generalized that they might be mediated by attentional mechanisms (Pisella et al., 2006; Redding and Wallace, 2006). In neglect patients, performance on spatial attention tasks improves after rightward-deviating PA (Jacquin-Courtois et al., 2013). In contrast, in healthy subjects, although there is evidence that leftward-deviating PA induces neglect-like performance on some visuospatial tasks, behavioral studies of spatial attention tasks have mostly yielded negative results (Morris et al., 2004; Bultitude et al., 2013). We hypothesized that these negative behavioral findings might reflect the limitations of behavioral measures in healthy subjects. Here we exploited the sensitivity of event-related potentials to test the hypothesis that electrophysiological markers of attentional processes in the healthy human brain are affected by PA. Leftward-deviating PA generated asymmetries in attentional orienting (reflected in the cue-locked N1) and in attentional disengagement for invalidly cued left targets (reflected in the target-locked P1). This is the first electrophysiological demonstration that leftward-deviating PA in healthy subjects mimics attentional patterns typically seen in neglect patients. Significance statement: Prism adaptation (PA) is a promising tool for ameliorating many deficits in neglect patients and inducing neglect-like behavior in healthy subjects. The mechanisms underlying PA's effects are poorly understood but one hypothesis suggests that it acts by modulating attention. To date, however, there has been no successful demonstration of attentional modulation in healthy subjects. We provide the first electrophysiological evidence that PA acts on attention in healthy subjects by mimicking the attentional pattern typically reported in neglect patients: both a rightward attentional orienting bias (reflected in the cue-locked N1) and a deficit in attentional disengagement from the right hemispace (reflected in the target-locked P1). This study makes an important contribution to refining current models of the mechanisms underlying PA's cognitive effects.

Endogenous attention modulates attentional and motor interference from distractors: evidence from behavioral and electrophysiological results

Selective visual attention enhances the processing of relevant stimuli and filters out irrelevant stimuli and/or distractors. However, irrelevant information is sometimes processed, as demonstrated by the Simon effect (Simon and Rudell, 1967). We examined whether fully irrelevant distractors (task and target-irrelevant) produce interference (measured as the Simon effect), and whether endogenous orienting modulated this interference. Despite being fully irrelevant, distractors were attentionally coded (as reflected by the distractor-related N2pc component), and interfered with the processing of the target response (as reflected by the target-related lateralized readiness potential component). Distractors' attentional capture depended on endogenous attention, and their interference with target responses was modulated by both endogenous attention and distractor location repetition. These results demonstrate both endogenous attentional and motor modulations over the Simon effect produced by fully irrelevant distractors.

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.

On the role of eye movement monitoring and discouragement on inhibition of return in a go/no-go task

Inhibition of return (IOR) most often describes the finding of increased response times to cued as compared to uncued targets in the standard covert orienting paradigm. A perennial question in the IOR literature centers on whether the effect of IOR is on motoric/decision-making processes (output-based IOR), attentional/perceptual processes (input-based IOR), or both. Recent data converge on the idea that IOR is an output-based effect when eye movements are required or permitted whereas IOR is an input-based effect when eye movements are monitored and actively discouraged. The notion that the effects of IOR may be fundamentally different depending on the activation state of the oculomotor system has been challenged by several studies demonstrating that IOR exists as an output-, or output- plus input-based effect in simple keypress tasks not requiring oculomotor responses. Problematically, experiments in which keypress responses are required to visual events rarely use eye movement monitoring let alone the active discouragement of eye movement errors. Here, we return to an experimental method implemented by Ivanoff and Klein (2001) whose results demonstrated that IOR affected output-based processes when, ostensibly, only keypress responses occurred. Unlike Ivanoff and Klein, however, we assiduously monitor and discourage eye movements. We demonstrate that actively discouraging eye movements in keypress tasks changes the form of IOR from output- to input-based and, as such, we strongly encourage superior experimental control over or consideration of the contribution of eye movement activity in simple keypress tasks exploring IOR.

Two cognitive and neural systems for endogenous and exogenous spatial attention

Orienting of spatial attention is a family of phylogenetically old mechanisms developed to select information for further processing. Information can be selected via top-down or endogenous mechanisms, depending on the goals of the observers or on the task at hand. Moreover, salient and potentially dangerous events also attract spatial attention via bottom-up or exogenous mechanisms, allowing a rapid and efficient reaction to unexpected but important events. Fronto-parietal brain networks have been demonstrated to play an important role in supporting spatial attentional orienting, although there is no consensus on whether there is a single attentional system supporting both endogenous and exogenous attention, or two anatomical and functionally different attentional systems. In the present paper we review behavioral evidence emphasizing the differential characteristics of both systems, as well as their possible interactions for the control of the final orienting response. Behavioral studies reporting qualitative differences between the effects of both systems as well as double dissociations of the effects of endogenous and exogenous attention on information processing, suggest that they constitute two independent attentional systems, rather than a single one. Recent models of attentional orienting in humans have put forward the hypothesis of a dorsal fronto-parietal network for orienting spatial attention, and a more ventral fronto-parietal network for detecting unexpected but behaviorally relevant events. Non-invasive neurostimulation techniques, as well as neuropsychological data, suggest that endogenous and exogenous attention are implemented in overlapping, although partially segregated, brain circuits. Although more research is needed in order to refine our anatomical and functional knowledge of the brain circuits underlying spatial attention, we conclude that endogenous and exogenous spatial orienting constitute two independent attentional systems, with different behavioral effects, and partially distinct neural substrates.

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.

Spatial cueing modulates the monitoring of correct responses

Efficient behavior requires actions to be monitored continuously. The monitoring of errors as reflected in the error negativity (Ne) has been claimed to be an important source for behavioral adaptation. The corresponding process of controlling correct responses is less evaluated. Recent studies on post-behavior negativities implicate a common response monitoring system for both behavioral outcomes. Specifically, it has been suggested that negative potentials following correct responses may be a correlate of response expectancy, evaluating congruences in the absence of behavioral errors. This notion was tested in a simple spatial cueing task. An inhibition of return (IOR) paradigm was utilized and the response-related ERP (Ne-like) was tested in a task with hardly any response errors. The results show that the Ne-like is sensitive to already very basic cue-target relations and the IOR effect.

Eliminating inhibition of return by changing salient nonspatial attributes in a complex environment

Inhibition of return (IOR) occurs when a target is preceded by an irrelevant stimulus (cue) at the same location: Target detection is slowed, relative to uncued locations. In the present study, we used relatively complex displays to examine the effect of repetition of nonspatial attributes. For both color and shape, attribute repetition produced a robust inhibitory effect that followed a time course similar to that for location-based IOR. However, the effect only occurred when the target shared both the feature (i.e., color or shape) and location with the cue; this constraint implicates a primary role for location. The data are consistent with the idea that the system integrates consecutive stimuli into a single object file when attributes repeat, hindering detection of the second stimulus. The results are also consistent with an interpretation of IOR as a form of habituation, with greater habituation occurring with increasing featural overlap of a repeated stimulus. Critically, both of these interpretations bring the IOR effect within more general approaches to attention and perception, rather than requiring a specialized process with a limited function. In this view, there is no process specifically designed to inhibit return, suggesting that IOR may be the wrong framing of inhibitory repetition effects. Instead, we suggest that repetition of stimulus properties can interfere with the ability to focus attention on the aspects of a complex display that are needed to detect the occurrence of the target stimulus; this is a failure of activation, not an inhibition of processing.

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.

The components of visual attention and the ubiquitous Simon effect

Spatial responding is influenced by the degree of correspondence between the stimulus-response (S-R) code activated by the target's task-irrelevant location and the S-R code activated by the target's non-spatial, task-relevant feature. A generally accepted explanation of this "Simon effect," named after its discoverer, is that there is a natural tendency to respond towards the source of stimulation. First we will review the ubiquity of the Simon effect. Then we will review the literature, including our own studies when appropriate, that has explored the relationship between the Simon effect and the components of attention: alertness, orienting and executive control, with an emphasis on visual orienting. The Simon effect is reduced when participants are not alert and when executive control is effective in filtering out the irrelevant location information. When attention is oriented endogenously, or is captured exogenously by uninformative peripheral stimulation, the Simon effect is additive with attentional facilitation (i.e., the Simon effect is the same magnitude for targets presented at attended and unattended locations). Yet, some forms of orienting, such as orienting directed by gaze and biased by inhibition of return, modulate the Simon effect. We will explore the implications of these patterns of additivity and interaction for our understanding of both the Simon effect and spatial attention.

Inhibitory interaction: the effects of multiple non-predictive visual cues

When the interval between a non-predictive cue and a target appearing at the same spatial location is longer than about 200 ms, target performance is typically poorer than when the cue and target appear at different locations. Recent studies have shown that this effect, known as inhibition of return (IOR), can occur at multiple cued locations, and is enhanced when multiple cues are presented at the same spatial location. However, little is known about how the magnitude of IOR at one spatial location is influenced by a subsequent or preceding cue presented at a different spatial location. We investigated this issue by presenting single or multiple cues at varying inter-cue intervals prior to target onset. Results suggest that the magnitude of IOR at a given location is influenced by the presentation of a preceding cue, but that once IOR occurs, it is unaffected by the presentation of a subsequent cue.

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.

The mechanism underlying inhibition of saccadic return

Human observers take longer to re-direct gaze to a previously fixated location. Although there has been some exploration of the characteristics of inhibition of saccadic return (ISR), the exact mechanisms by which ISR operates are currently unknown. In the framework of accumulation models of response times, in which evidence is integrated over time to a response threshold, ISR could reflect a reduction in the rate of accumulation for saccades to return locations or an increase in the effective criterion for response. In two experiments, participants generated sequences of three saccades, in response to a peripheral or a central cue. ISR occurred across these manipulations: saccade latency was consistently increased for movements to the immediately previously fixated location. Latency distributions from individual observers were fit with a Linear Ballistic Accumulator model. ISR was best accounted for as a change in the accumulation rate. We suggest this parameter represents the overall desirability of a particular course of action, the evidence for which may be derived from a variety of sensory and non-sensory sources.

Response-selection Conflict Contributes to Inhibition of Return

Here we examined the relationship between inhibition of return (IOR) and response-selection conflict. In two go/no-go and spatial-cueing experiments, we measured the amplitude of the fronto-central N2 event-related potential component to estimate the degree of response-selection conflict for validly cued and invalidly cued targets. When the probability of a go target was high (Experiment 1), both the amplitude of the N2 elicited on no-go trials and the number of false alarm errors were greater on invalid-cue than on valid-cue trials. When the probability of a go target was low (Experiment 2), neither of these effects was observed and the magnitude of the IOR effect was greatly reduced. These results show that a relative response bias toward responding on invalid-cue trials contributes to the IOR reaction time effect when the required response is prepotent.

Evidence from a response choice task reveals a selection bias in the attentional cueing paradigm

In a typical attentional cueing paradigm, irrelevant peripheral cues produce early facilitation (fast responses) followed by later inhibition (slow responses) to cued locations. Here we examine whether cues not only influence the speed with which responses are produced, but also impact or bias which location is ultimately selected as requiring a response. Specifically, can cues influence not only the speed with which we respond but also influence the behavior produced? To examine this question, a choice localization task was used in which no targets were presented, and subjects were asked to choose which effector (left hand, right hand) to use in response to a centrally presented tone. Thus, following either a left or right peripheral cue, and then a central tone, subjects were free to respond with either their left or right hand. Early facilitation and later inhibition with this choice procedure were found in both response times and the proportion of responses to the cued and uncued locations. These results suggest that there are processes which initially bias response selection toward cued locations and then subsequently bias response selection away from cued locations.

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.

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.

The manifestation of attentional capture: facilitation or IOR depending on task demands

Orienting attention exogenously to a location can have two different consequences on processing subsequent stimuli appearing at that location: positive (facilitation) at short intervals and negative (inhibition of return) at long ones. In the present experiments, we manipulated the frequency of targets and responses associated with them. Results showed that, even at long SOAs, where IOR is usually observed, facilitation was observed for infrequent targets at the same time that IOR was measured for frequent targets. These results are difficult to explain on the basis of either task set modulation of attentional capture or task set modulation of subsequent orienting processes. In contrast, we offer an explanation by which the different cuing effects can be considered as different manifestations of attentional capture on target processing, depending on the task set.