No evidence for rhythmic sampling in inhibition of return

When exogenously cued, attention reflexively reorients towards the cued position. After a brief dwelling time, attention is released and then persistently inhibited from returning to this position for up to three seconds, a phenomenon coined 'inhibition of return' (IOR). This inhibitory interpretation has shaped our understanding of the spatio-temporal dynamics of the attentional spotlight after an exogenous visual cue for more than three decades. However, a recent theory refines this traditional view and predicts that attention rhythmically alternates between possible target locations at a theta frequency, implying occasional returns of attention to the cued position. Unfortunately, previous IOR studies have only probed performance at a few, temporally wide-spread cue-target onset asynchronies (CTOAs) rendering a comparison of these contradictory predictions impossible. We therefore used a temporally fine-grained adaptation of the Posner paradigm with 25 equally and densely spaced CTOAs, which yielded a robust IOR effect in the reaction time difference between valid and invalidly cued trials. We modelled the time course of this effect across CTOAs as a linear or exponential decay (traditional IOR model), sinusoidal rhythm (rhythmic model) and a combination of both (hybrid model). Model comparison by means of goodness-of-fit indices provided strong evidence in favor of traditional IOR models, and against theta-rhythmic attentional sampling contributing to IOR. This finding was supported by an FFT analysis, which also revealed no significant theta rhythm. We therefore conclude that the spatio-temporal dynamics of attention following an exogenous cue cannot be explained by rhythmic attentional sampling.

Context-specific attentional sampling: Intentional control as a pre-requisite for contextual control

Recent work suggests that environmental cues associated with previous attentional control settings can rapidly and involuntarily adjust attentional priorities. The current study tests predictions from adaptive-learning and memory-based theories of contextual control about the role of intentions for setting attentional priorities. To extend the empirical boundaries of contextual control phenomena, and to determine whether theoretical principles of contextual control are generalizable we used a novel bi-dimensional stimulus sampling task. Subjects viewed briefly presented arrays of letters and colors presented above or below fixation, and identified specific stimuli according to a dimensional (letter or color) and positional cue. Location was predictive of the cued dimension, but not the position or identity. In contrast to previous findings, contextual control failed to develop through automatic, adaptive-learning processes. Instead, previous experience with intentionally changing attentional sampling priorities between different contexts was required for contextual control to develop.