We explored the nature and time course of effects generated by spatially uninformative peripheral cues by measuring these effects with localization responses to peripheral onsets or central arrow targets. In Experiment 1, participants made saccadic eye movements to equiprobable peripheral and central targets. At short cue-target onset asynchronies (CTOAs), responses to cued peripheral stimuli suffered from slowed responding attributable to sensory adaptation while responses to central targets were transiently facilitated, presumably due to cue-elicited oculomotor activation. At the longest CTOA, saccadic responses to central and peripheral targets were indistinguishably delayed, suggesting a common, output/decision effect (inhibition of return; IOR). In Experiment 2, we tested the hypothesis that the generation of this output effect is dependent on the activation state of the oculomotor system by forbidding eye movements and requiring keypress responses to frequent peripheral targets, while probing oculomotor behavior with saccades to infrequent central arrow targets. As predicted, saccades to central arrow targets showed neither the early facilitation nor later inhibitory effects that were robust in Experiment 1. At the long CTOA, manual responses to cued peripheral targets showed the typical delayed responses usually attributed to IOR. We recommend that this late "inhibitory" cueing effect (ICE) be distinguished from IOR because it lacks the cause (oculomotor activation) and effect (response bias) attributed to IOR when it was named by Posner, Rafal, Choate, and Vaughan (1985).

Inhibition of return (IOR) is an orienting phenomenon characterized by slower behavioral responses to spatially cued, relative to uncued targets, when the cue-target onset asynchronies (CTOAs) are long enough that cue-elicited attentional capture has dispersed. Here, we implement a short-term depression (STD) account of IOR within a neuroscientifically based dynamic neural field model (DNF) of the superior colliculus (SC). In addition to the prototypical findings in the cue-target paradigm (i.e., the biphasic pattern of behavioral enhancement at short CTOAs and behavioral costs at long CTOAs), a variety of findings in the literature are generated with this model, including IOR in averaging saccades and the co-existence of IOR and endogenous orienting at the same location. Many findings that cannot be accommodated by this model could be accounted for by incorporating cortical contributions.

Taylor and Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26:1639-1656, 2000) discovered two mutually exclusive "flavors" of inhibition of return (IOR): When the oculomotor system is "actively suppressed," IOR affects input processes (the perception/attention flavor), whereas when the oculomotor system is "engaged," IOR affects output processes (the motor flavor). Studies of brain activity with ignored cues have typically reported that IOR reduces an early sensory event-related potential (ERP) component (i.e., the P1 component) of the brain's response to the target. Since eye movements were discouraged in these experiments, the P1 reduction might be a reflection of the perception/attention flavor of IOR. If, instead of ignoring the cue, participants made a prosaccade to the cue (and then returned to fixation) before responding to the target, the motor flavor of IOR should then be generated. We compared these two conditions while monitoring eye position and recording ERPs to the targets. If the P1 modulation is related to the perceptual/ attentional flavor of IOR, we hypothesized that it might be absent when the motoric flavor of IOR was generated by a prosaccade to the cue. Our results demonstrated that targetrelated P1 reductions and behavioral IOR were similar, and significant, in both conditions. However, P1 modulations were significantly correlated with behavioral IOR only when the oculomotor system was actively suppressed, suggesting that P1 modulations may only affect behaviorally exhibited IOR when the attentional/perceptual flavor of IOR is recruited.

When, in relation to the execution of an eye movement, does the recoding of visual information from retinotopic to spatiotopic coordinates happen? Two laboratories seeking to answer this question using oculomotor inhibition of return (IOR) have generated different answers: Mathôt and Theeuwes (Psychological Science 21:1793-1798, 2010) found evidence for the initial coding of IOR to be retinotopic, while Pertzov, Zohary, and Avidan (Journal of Neuroscience 30:8882-8887, 2010) found evidence for spatiotopic IOR at even shorter postsaccadic intervals than were tested by Mathôt and Theeuwes (Psychological Science 21:1793-1798, 2010). To resolve this discrepancy, we conducted two experiments that combined the methods of the previous two studies while testing as early as possible. We found early spatiotopic IOR in both experiments, suggesting that visual events, including prior fixations, are typically coded into an abstract, allocentric representation of space either before or during eye movements. This type of coding enables IOR to encourage orienting toward novelty and, consequently, to perform the role of a foraging facilitator.

No abstract