Inhibition of return (IOR) is usually viewed as an inhibitory aftermath of visual orienting typically seen in the form of slower responses to targets presented in a previously oriented to location. As shown by Taylor and Klein (2000. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1639-1656), the nature of the inhibitory effects resulting from an uninformative cue seem to be contingent on the activation state of the oculomotor system. Here we contrast target discrimination performance following either a prosaccade or antisaccade in the spatial cueing paradigm. Our findings suggest that the level of activation of the reflexive oculomotor system determines the dynamics of the inhibitory effect, wherein an effect nearer to the input end of processing is observed when the reflexive oculomotor system is actively suppressed, and an effect nearer to the output end of processing is observed when the reflexive oculomotor system is actively engaged. These effects interact differently with the Simon effect-providing converging evidence that they are dissociable inhibitory phenomena.

Alerting is one of the three components of attention which involves the eliciting and maintenance of arousal. A seminal study by Posner et al. (Posner MI, Klein R, Summers J, Buggie S. 1973 Mem. Cognit. 1, 2–12 (doi:10.3758/BF0319806210.3758/BF03198062)) focused on how changing the interval between an alerting signal and a target would impact the speed and accuracy of responding. Participants indicated whether targets were presented on the left or right side of the fixation point. Auditory warning signals were played at various intervals prior to the target to alert participants and prepare them to make a response. Reaction times revealed a robust, U-shaped, preparation function. Importantly, a clear speed-accuracy trade-off (SAT) was observed. In the current experiment, we replicated the methodological components of this seminal study while implementing a novel auditory warning signal (Lawrence MA, Klein RM. 2013 J. Exp. Psychol. General 142, 560 (doi:10.1037/a002902310.1037/a0029023)) that was either purely endogenous (change in quality without a change in intensity; analogous to isoluminant colour change in vision) or a combination of endogenous and exogenous (change in both quality and intensity). We expected to replicate the U-shaped preparation function and SAT observed by Posner and colleagues. Based on Lawrence and Klein's findings we also expected the SAT to be more robust with the intense signal in comparison to the isointense signal.

Inhibition of return (IOR) is an inhibitory aftereffect of visuospatial orienting, typically resulting in slower responses to targets presented in an area that has been recently attended. Since its discovery, myriad research has sought to explain the causes and effects underlying this phenomenon. Here, we briefly summarize the history of the phenomenon, and describe the early work supporting the functional significance of IOR as a foraging facilitator. We then shine a light on the discordance in the literature with respect to mechanism-in particular the lack of theoretical constructs that can consistently explain innumerable dissociations. We then describe three diagnostics (central arrow targets, locus of slack logic and the Psychological Refractory Period, and performance in speed-accuracy space) used to support our theory that there are two forms of inhibition of return-the form which is manifest being contingent upon the activation state of the reflexive oculomotor system. The input form, which operates to decrease the salience of inputs, is generated when the reflexive oculomotor system is suppressed; the output form, which operates to bias responding, is generated when the reflexive oculomotor system is not suppressed, Then, we subjected a published data set, wherein inhibitory effects had been generated while the reflexive oculomotor system was either active or suppressed, to diffusion modelling. As we hypothesized, based on the aforementioned theory, the effects of the two forms of IOR were best accounted for by different drift diffusion parameters. The paper ends with a variety of suggestions for further research.

Temporal attention is the focusing of perceptual resources at a particular point in time. Valid temporal cue information has the capability to improve performance by reducing reaction times, while invalid information has the possibility of impairing performance. The performance difference between valid and invalid conditions is called a temporal cueing effect (TCE). We explored how different alerting mechanisms interact with a participant's ability to utilize temporal information cues, using the Kingstone (The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44(1), 69-104, 1992) temporal cueing paradigm. Extracting the alerting procedure from Lawrence and Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 560-572, 2013), one of two different temporally contingent warning signals were presented to participants during a trial. The "hi-intensity" warning signal increases intensity and elicits both exogenous and endogenous alerting mechanisms. The "no-intensity" warning signal is isointense relative to baseline and elicits only endogenous alerting mechanisms. Two experiments conducted previously using a discrimination task showed interference between the signal intensity and task difficulty, where the "no-intensity" signal failed to elicit TCEs. In the present study, we implemented a detection task, reducing the mental effort required for a response. The results showed equal TCEs in both signal conditions. We argue for independence of these alerting mechanisms, by way of Sternberg's (Acta Psychologica, 30, 276-315, 1969) additive factor method. Arguments contrasting what mechanism is being impacted by this paradigm are further outlined.

Titchener's law of prior entry states that attended stimuli are perceived before unattended stimuli. Prior entry effects measured with visual stimuli have been generated with both endogenous and exogenous attentional deployment (e.g., by Shore, Spence, & Klein, 2001). In theory, the endogenous form of prior entry may have implications for baseball umpire judgments. Conventionally, umpires are instructed to first attend to the ball when it is hit into play; however, where they attend at the imperative instant of the play at first base can vary between individuals and across scenarios. If the law of prior entry holds in the baseball context, umpires may be biased to make judgments in favour of the imperative event nearest the locus of attention. We tested this hypothesis by having non-umpires make "Safe" or "Out" judgments in response to first base baseball plays wherein the relative arrival times of the runner and baseball were varied. A novel colour wheel method was implemented in an orthogonal task to bias attention endogenously and to measure the effectiveness of this manipulation. Attention was confirmed to be successfully biased to the glove or base by way of improved identification at the likely probe location. However, there was no evidence that prior entry was affecting Safe or Out judgments. (PsycINFO Database Record