Does the construction retrieval account apply to cross‐modal inhibition of return in semantic context?

Abstract

The traditional attentional reorienting hypothesis is insufficient to explain spatial and nonspatial inhibition of return (IOR). Therefore, a construction retrieval account that includes the influence of top‐down attentional sets has been proposed and can explain both spatial and nonspatial IOR. However, it remains unknown whether the construction retrieval account can be applied to non‐surface features of stimuli, as well as whether its construction and retrieval mechanisms are supra‐modal. The present study manipulated semantic feature congruency and spatial location congruency between the prime and the target in cross‐modal audio‐visual and visual‐audio experimental conditions, respectively, by orthogonally combining spatial and nonspatial IOR paradigms. Our results showed that there was an interaction between semantic feature congruency and spatial location congruency controlled by the attentional sets, and that this interaction was consistent in cross‐modal audio‐visual and visual‐audio conditions. These results suggest that the construction retrieval account can be applied to abstract semantic features and that its construction and retrieval mechanisms are supra‐modal. The present study extends the application scope of the construction retrieval account and promotes the interpretation of IOR under a unified theoretical framework.

Detection cost: A nonnegligible factor contributing to inhibition of return in the discrimination task under the cue–target paradigm

“…In this process, the completion of the task is affected to a greater extent by the similarity of the target and the episodic representation of the cue; thus, the spatial selection benefit plays a prominent role (Huffman et al, 2020;Lupiáñez et al, 2013). In fact, previous studies using the target-target paradigm have found that in the discrimination task, the spatial IOR effect disappeared, and the spatial facilitation effect occurred if the target presented at the cued location was identical to the cue (Pratt & Castel, 2001;Taylor & Donnelly, 2002;Zu et al, 2022). Therefore, the findings from the present study differ from those of previous studies, possibly due to paradigm differences.…”

“…Based on previous studies (Chi et al, 2014;Martín-Arévalo et al, 2013;Wang et al, 2020), the present study orthogonally manipulated peripheral cueing and nonspatial feature consistency between the cue and the target. In addition, to isolate the effect of attentional orienting, in contrast to previous studies (Pratt & Castel, 2001;Taylor & Donnelly, 2002;Zu et al, 2022), the present study promoted or hindered attentional disengagement from the cued location with a central reorienting cue. In this context, a detection cost was incurred when the target appeared in the cued location and was maximized when the nonspatial features were consistent between the cue and the target.…”

“…(Faul et al, 2009), and the results were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA. The sample size was estimated on the basis of our previous study, which used a within-subject design and procedure similar to that of the present study, who reported η p 2 of 0.60 and 0.50 for the interaction between peripheral cue validity and nonspatial feature consistency in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively (Zu et al, 2022). Thus, the projected η p 2 of the expected interaction was set at 0.50 in the present study.…”

“…Specifically, some studies have required participants to respond to the cue in addition to the target; this is known as the target‒target paradigm (Maylor & Hockey, 1985; Pratt & Castel, 2001). In terms of task context, in addition to manipulating peripheral cueing of the cue and the target, some studies have also manipulated the consistency of nonspatial features of the cue and the target, such as color, shape, and semantic aspects (Hu et al, 2011; Pratt & Castel, 2001; Taylor & Donnelly, 2002; Zu et al, 2022). Although studies using different methods still use the umbrella term “IOR” to describe the phenomenon of a slower response to the previously cued location, the IOR effect observed in different experimental contexts may be generated by different processes or by multiple independent processes (Dukewich & Klein, 2015).…”

“…The validation of the three-factor model in the discrimination task has mainly involved the target‒target paradigm. Such a task requires participants to respond to the cue immediately; researchers found that the spatial selection benefit determined whether the IOR effect occurred (Pratt & Castel, 2001; Taylor & Donnelly, 2002; Zu et al, 2022). That is, the spatial IOR effect occurred only when the nonspatial features differed between the cue and the target, while a target identical to the cue led to a spatial facilitation effect due to the spatial selection benefit.…”