Inhibition of return in manual and saccadic response systems

Abstract

When nonpredictive exogenous visual cues are used to reflexively orient covert visual spatial attention, the initial early facilitation for detecting stimuli at cued versus uncued spatial locations develops into inhibition by 300 msec following the cue, a pattern referred to as inhibition ofreturn (lOR), Experiments were carried out comparing the magnitude and time course for development of lOR effects when manual versus saccadic responses were required. The results showed that both manual and saccadic responses result in equivalent amounts of facilitation following initial exposure to a spatial cue. However, lOR developed more quickly for saccadic responses, such that, at certain cue-target SOAs, saccadic responses to targets were inhibited, whereas manual responses were still facilitated. The findings are interpreted in terms of a premotor theory of visual attention.

The manifestation of attentional capture: facilitation or IOR depending on task demands

“…The critical characteristic of Experiment 1 that induced participants to adopt this ''detection mode'' seems to have been the high frequency of a specific target-response mapping. This result is consistent with the results reported by Briand and collaborators (Briand, Larrison & Sereno, 2000;Khatoon, Briand & Sereno, 2002), who have shown that IOR appears earlier for more direct stimulus-response mappings (e.g., ocular rather than manual localization, or saccade rather than antisaccade localization).…”

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) or continuous unilateral distal experimental pain stimulation in healthy subjects does not bias visual attention towards one hemifield

“…3c) starts to appear after an SOA of about 500 ms. This finding is in line with previous studies on saccade latencies and the IOR effect (Abrams and Dobkin 1994a, b;Briand et al 2000). The observed pattern of saccadic reaction times in the CRPS patients differed greatly from that of classical parietal neglect patients.…”

“…Increased latencies are seen as an indication for an interference with the allocation of the visual attention towards the target position. To further explore if neglect-like symptoms in CRPS also involve an imbalance in the distribution of visual attention between the two hemifields, saccadic reaction times towards cued or uncued peripheral visual targets were measured in CRPS patients and compared to healthy controls using a common experimental setting for testing visuospatial attention (Abrams and Dobkin 1994a;Briand et al 2000). Such cueing experiments show that a visual cue orients visual attention towards the cued location enhancing the processing of a following motor reaction (e.g., saccadic eye movement) towards that location (Posner and Cohen 1984).…”

Investigating the parameters of transsaccadic memory: inhibition of return impedes information acquisition near a saccade target

“…As IOR may affect saccade latency (Briand, Larrison, & Sereno, 2000;Klein & MacInnes, 1999) it was crucial to exclude a possible interaction between delayed saccades towards a location associated with IOR. No indications of an effect was found for onset location on saccade latency, F(4, 44) = 0.54, p = .48, η 2 < 0.01.…”

“…IOR has been associated with increasing in saccade latency when saccading to a previously cued location (Briand et al, 2000). For this reason we wanted to examine the possibility that our results could be explained through differences in saccade latencies.…”