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

Abstract

Three experiments were conducted to determine whether inhibition of return can be best characterized as an attentional or a motor phenomenon. In the first experiment, subjects made choice keypress responses to the location of a target (left or right) or the identity of the target (X or +) by pressing a left or right response key.In the second experiment, the display was rotated 90°so that there was no direct spatial mapping between the vertically aligned stimulus display and the horizontally aligned response keys. In both experiments, inhibition of return was observed for location-based and identitybased choice responses, although more inhibition was seen in the identity-based responses. The results of the third experiment suggested that this larger inhibitory effect may be specific to the covert orienting of reflexive attention in response to the sudden appearance of a single peripheral stimulus in the identity tasks. Overall, the results are consistent with the attentional, not the motor, explanation of inhibition of return.When an uniformative peripheral cue is brightened briefly, people are faster to detect the appearance ofan object at the cued location than at an uncued or novellocation (see, e.g.,

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

“…Thus, Klein and Taylor suggested that inhibition will occur only for detection responses and discrimination responses based on the spatial location of the target. There is, however, growing evidence that inhibition may be found for responses based solely on the identity of a target, indicating that inhibited spatially localized motor responses cannot provide a complete account for the inhibition found at cued locations (e.g., Chasteen & Pratt, 1999;Lupianez et al, 1997;Pratt et al, 1997).…”

The Relationship Between Inhibition of Return and Saccade Trajectory Deviations.

“…Although the oculomotor system appears to play an important role in IOR (e.g., Rafal et al, 1989;, 2000, there is also a great deal of evidence that attention is inhibited from returning to previously cued locations (e.g., Handy, Jha, & Mangun, 1999;Lupiáñez et al, 1997;McDonald, Ward, & Kiehl, 1999;Pratt et al, 1997). If it is assumed that attention and motor programming are achieved within a network, it may also be assumed that inhibition applied to a preoculomotor attentional map is passed on throughout the network, subsequently affecting other motor responses in addition to saccades.…”

“…The cause is associated with the processes occurring on presentation of the cue, whereas its effects are measured by responses to a target, presented at the cued location or at an uncued location. A great deal of research has shown that after IOR has been generated, it affects both manual keypress responses (e.g., Lupiáñez, Milán, Tornay, Madrid, & Tudela, 1997;Posner & Cohen, 1984;Pratt, Kingstone, & Khoe, 1997;Rafal, Calabresi, Brennan, & Sciolto, 1989) and oculomotor responses (e.g., Abrams & Dobkin, 1994;Godijn & Theeuwes, 2002a;Klein & MacInnes, 1999;Rafal, Egly, & Rhodes, 1994).…”

Grabbing attention without knowing: Automatic capture of attention by subliminal spatial cues

“…It is important to note that IOR at a location in space only follows after attention has shifted reflexively to that location (see Klein, 2000, for a review). Indeed, IOR does not follow a shift of attention that is directed endogenously (voluntarily; Posner & Cohen, 1984;Pratt, Kingstone, & Khoe, 1997), except in conditions in which participants endogenously prepare an eye movement (Rafal, Calabresi, Brennan, & Sciolto, 1989).…”