Cue repetition increases inhibition of return

Dukewich, Kristie R.; Boehnke, Susan E.

doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2008.10.063

Cited by 28 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Danziger et al, 1998) in showing that robust IOR can occur at multiple spatial locations simultaneously. They also replicate earlier findings by Visser and Barnes (2009) and Dukewich and Boehnke (2008) showing that increasing the number of cues presented at a spatial location yields greater IOR. What is new here is that we show that the magnitude of IOR at the most recently cued spatial location is influenced by the temporal interval between cues.…”

Section: Comparisons Across Trial Typessupporting

confidence: 89%

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

Visser

Barnes

2010

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Comparisons Across Trial Typessupporting

confidence: 89%

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

Visser

Barnes

2010

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although they were not attempting to test the habituation hypothesis, Pratt and Abrams (1995) observed a similar result: When two successive cues were presented at the same location prior to the presentation of a target, there was greater IOR than there was when the two cues were presented at different locations (see Figure 4C). Specifically trying to test this prediction, Dukewich and Boehnke (2008) found an increase in IOR as the number of cues prior to the presentation of the target increased (see Figure 4D). This prediction was qualified by the word "uninformative."…”

Section: Specific Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The hypothetical data are presented two ways: with the number of stimulus presentations represented along the x-axis ( Figure 5A), as habituation researchers tend to plot the data, and with SOA represented along the x-axis (Figure 5B), as IOR researchers tend to plot the data. Dukewich and Boehnke (2008) investigated the effect of both number of cues and rate of presentation directly using a modified Posner cuing paradigm with multiple cues, that all had distinct identities and were presented at the same location. In order to dissociate temporal predictability and spatial predictability, trials were blocked according to the number of cues presented, and a constant rate of presentation was maintained within trials.…”

Section: Specific Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconceptualizing inhibition of return as

Dukewich

2009

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Self Cite

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These neurocog-nitive modules have been identified with some consistency already: sensory/perceptual/input (c.f. Dukewich & Boehnke, 2008), motor/oculomotor/output (c.f. Klein and Taylor, 1994;Posner et al 1985), and cognitive/attentional (c.f.…”

Section: Ambiguous Termsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhibition of return: A phenomenon in search of a definition and a theoretical framework

Dukewich

Klein

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Cue repetition increases inhibition of return

Cited by 28 publications

References 18 publications

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

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

Reconceptualizing inhibition of return as

Inhibition of return: A phenomenon in search of a definition and a theoretical framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About