No abstract

No abstract

Recent research using the Posner cuing paradigm to explore inhibition of return seems to suggest that repetition of a nonspatial feature modulates cue-related facilitatory and inhibitory aftereffects differently in detection and discrimination tasks. Because the cues were unrelated to the final response in the detection task but parallel to (not orthogonal with) the final response in the discrimination task, it is unclear whether the different patterns of results were caused by the complexity of the decision (detection vs. discrimination) or by the task relevance of the feature that might or might not repeat from cue to target. Using a paradigm modeled on previous work, in Experiment 1 (detection task) and 2 (discrimination task) we replicated the previous patterns: No early feature repetition benefit but reduced IOR for feature mismatch trials in the detection task; and large early feature repetition benefit but no effect of feature match upon the later IOR in the discrimination task. In Experiment 3 (discrimination task), we used an "orthogonal-cuing" method: the feature (color) that could repeat or not from cue to target was not on the dimension being discriminated (shape). The pattern of results was very similar to what is observed in detection tasks. These results demonstrate that it is not the task but the task relevance of the repeating feature that modulates facilitation and inhibition effects. The findings are generally consistent with a habituation account of the inhibitory aftereffects of orienting but do not rule out the contribution of other mechanisms.

In a study of scientific nomenclature, we explore the diversity of perspectives researchers endorse for the phenomenon of inhibition of return (IOR). IOR is often described as an effect whereby people are slower to respond to a target presented at a recently stimulated or inspected location as compared to a target presented at a new location. Since its discovery, scores of papers have been published on IOR, and researchers have proposed, accepted and rejected a variety of potential causes, mechanisms, effects and components for the phenomenon. Experts in IOR were surveyed about their opinions regarding various aspects of IOR and the literature exploring it. We found variety both between and within experts surveyed, suggesting that most researchers hold implicit, and often quite unique assumptions about IOR. These widely varied assumptions may be hindering the creation or acceptance of a central theoretical framework regarding IOR; and this variety may portend that what has been given the label "IOR" may be more than one phenomenon requiring more than one theoretical explanation. We wonder whether scientific progress in domains other than IOR might be affected by too broad (or perhaps too narrow) a range of phenomena to which our nomenclature is applied. Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article

In highly controlled cuing experiments, conspecific gaze direction has powerful effects on an observer's attention. We explored the generality of this effect by using paintings in which the gaze direction of a key character had been carefully manipulated. Our observers looked at these paintings in one of three instructional states (neutral, social, or spatial) while we monitored their eye movements. Overt orienting was much less influenced by the critical gaze direction than what the cuing literature might suggest: An analysis of the direction of saccades following the first fixation of the critical gaze showed that observers were weakly biased to orient in the direction of the gaze. Over longer periods of viewing, however, this effect disappeared for all but the social condition. This restriction of gaze as an attentional cue to a social context is consistent with the idea that the evolution of gaze direction detection is rooted in social communication. The picture stimuli from this experiment can be downloaded from the Psychonomic Society's Archive of Norms, Stimuli, and Data, www.psychonomic.org/archive.