Inhibition of return in a discrimination task

Abstract

Inhibition of return (lOR) refers to a bias against returning visual attention to a location that has been recently attended. Although lOR has been demonstrated in a wide range of detection tasks, it has not been reliably shown in discrimination tasks. The results of the present experiment, in which eye movement responses and a cue-target procedure were used, indicate that lOR can exist in a discrimination task. Moreover, the results indicate that the amount oflOR in the discrimination task was approximately equal to that found in the detection task. The results suggest that lOR will be obtained in a discrimination task if the prior allocation of attention does not yield any useful information concerning the forthcoming discrimination judgment.

Examining the effect of practice on inhibition of return in static displays

“…Inhibition of return has been found in detection tasks with simple keypress responses (e.g., Maylor & Hockey, 1985), choice keypress responses (e.g., , and eye movement responses (e.g., Abrams & Dobkin, 1994). Recently, inhibition of return has also been found in discrimination tasks in which the responses were based on either the identity of the target stimulus (Lupiafiez, Milan, Tomay, Madrid, & Tudela, 1997;Pratt, Kingstone, & Khoe, 1997) or the identity and location of the target stimulus (Pratt, 1995;Pratt & Abrams, 1999; but see also Terry, Valdes, & Neill, 1994). An especially interesting finding has been that the inhibition appears not Copyright 1999 Psychonomic Society, Inc. 756…”

Inhibition of return in location- and identity-based choice decision tasks

“…Unfortunately, it is difficult to assess the validity of the motor explanation on the basis of the results of the choice keypress tasks used by Terry et al (1994) and Pratt (1995). Consistent with the motor explanation, no inhibition ofreturn was present in the discrimination tasks that did not have a spatial component (Experiments 1 and 3 of Terry et aI.).…”

“…Pratt (1995) presented a peripheral cue, followed by a fixation cue, followed by either a single target (detection condition) or a target and a nontarget (discrimination condition). Unlike Terry et aI.…”

The time to detect targets at inhibited and noninhibited locations: Preliminary evidence for attentional momentum.

“…It also appears that inhibition of return may affect more than one previously attended location (e.g., Abrams & Pratt, 1996;Danziger, Kingstone, & Snyder, 1998;Tipper, Weaver, & Watson, 1996;Wright & Richard, 1996), although, depending on the circumstances, only the most recently attended location may yield inhibited detection responses (Abrams & Pratt, 1996;Pratt & Abrams, 1995). Despite some early evidence to the contrary (Tanaka & Shimojo, 1996;Terry, Valdes, & Neill, 1994), there now appears to be growing support for the finding that inhibition of return may occur not only for responses based on the detection of a target but also for responses that are based on the identity of the target stimulus (Chasteen & Pratt, 1999;Lupianez, Milan, Tomay, Madrid, & Tudela, 1997;Pratt, 1995;Pratt & Abrams, 1999;Pratt, Kingstone, & Khoe, 1997).…”