Inhibition of return in single and dual tasks: Examining saccadic, keypress, and pointing responses

When multiple cues are presented simultaneously, Klein, Christie, and Morris (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12:295-300, 2005) found a gradient of inhibition (of return, IOR), with the slowest simple manual detection responses occurring to targets in the direction of the center of gravity of the cues. Here, we explored the possibility of extending this finding to the saccade response modality, using methods of data analysis that allowed us to consider the relative contributions of the distance from the target to the center of gravity of the array of cues and the nearest element in the cue array. We discovered that the bulk of the IOR effect with multiple cues, in both the previous and present studies, can be explained by the distance between the target and the center of gravity of the cue array. The present results are consistent with the proposal advanced by Klein et al., (2005) suggesting that this IOR effect is due to population coding in the oculomotor pathways (e.g., the superior colliculus) driving the eye movement system toward the center of gravity of the cued array.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Inhibition of return is at the midpoint of simultaneous cues

Christie

Hilchey

Klein

2013

“…By removing sensory effects associated with the use of peripheral stimuli in previous experiments (e.g., Briand et al, 2000;Howard et al, 1999;Khatoon et al, 2002;Neyedli & Welsh, 2012;Pratt & Neggers, 2008;Sereno et al, 2006;Tremblay et al, 2005;Welsh & Elliot, 2004;Welsh & Pratt, 2006), as well as the preparatory interval given to participants by Cowper-Smith et al (2013), the results of our study allow us to confidently conclude that motor IOR can be implemented within the reaching control system and dismiss a popular view that motor IOR is restricted to the oculomotor system. This observation is important because it undermines two major pillars of existing IOR theories.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…3 This idea is not surprising, given that the analogous form of motor IOR for saccadic responses is typically revealed using saccadic localization responses directed toward the target location (e.g., Hunt & Kingstone, 2003;Posner & Cohen, 1984;Pratt & Neggers, 2008;Taylor & Klein, 2000). Indeed, a common interpretation of motor IOR within the oculomotor system is that motor IOR inhibits saccadic responses directed toward a location that was previously specified by an oculomotor program (e.g., Klein & MacInnes, 1999;Klein & Taylor, 1994;MacInnes & Klein, 2003;Taylor & Klein, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The authors therefore concluded that the presence of IOR for manual responses in general-and for reaching movements in particular-is attributable to sensory rather than motor effects. By extension, all previous studies using reaching movements and peripheral targets could be demonstrating sensory, rather than motor, effects (Briand et al, 2000;Howard et al, 1999;Khatoon et al, 2002;Neyedli & Welsh, 2012;Pratt & Neggers, 2008;Sereno et al, 2006;Taylor & Klein, 2000;Tremblay et al, 2005;Welsh & Elliot, 2004;Welsh & Pratt, 2006). On the strength of their failure to observe IOR for manual responses to central arrowhead targets, Fischer et al reached the strong conclusion that "motor-based IOR is restricted to the oculomotor system" (see , for a similar conclusion).…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Motor IOR revealed for reaching

Cowper-Smith

Westwood

2013

Inhibition of return (IOR) is a spatial phenomenon that is thought to promote visual search functions by biasing attention and eye movements toward novel locations. Considerable research suggests distinct sensory and motor flavors of IOR, but it is not clear whether the motor type can affect responses other than eye movements. Most studies claiming to reveal motor IOR in the reaching control system have been confounded by their use of peripheral signals, which can invoke sensory rather than motor-based inhibitory effects. Other studies have used central signals to focus on motor, rather than sensory, effects in arm movements but have failed to observe IOR and have concluded that the motor form of IOR is restricted to the oculomotor system. Here, we show the first clear evidence that motor IOR can be observed for reaching movements when participants respond to consecutive central stimuli. This observation suggests that motor IOR serves a more general function than the facilitation of visual search, perhaps reducing the likelihood of engaging in repetitive behavior.

“…One focus of these variations has been a dedicated effort (Abrams & Dobkin, 1994b;Chica, Taylor, Lupiáñez, & Klein, 2010;Kingstone & Pratt, 1999;Pratt & Neggers, 2008;Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996;Taylor & Klein, 2000) to determine the extent to which IOR's effects on performance are primarily on the input or the output 1 end of the processing continuum.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptual and motor inhibition of return: components or flavors?

Hilchey

Klein

Ivanoff

2012

The most common evidence for inhibition of return (IOR) is the robust finding of increased response times to targets that appear at previously cued locations following a cue-target interval exceeding~300 ms. In a variation on this paradigm, Abrams and Dobkin (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20:467-477, 1994b) observed that IOR was greater when measured with a saccadic response to a peripheral target than with that to a central arrow, leading to the conclusion that saccadic responses to peripheral targets comprise motoric and perceptual components (the twocomponents theory for saccadic IOR), whereas saccadic responses to a central target comprise a single motoric component. In contrast, Taylor and Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26: [1639][1640][1641][1642][1643][1644][1645][1646][1647][1648][1649][1650][1651][1652][1653][1654][1655][1656] 2000) discovered that IOR for saccadic responses was equivalent for central and peripheral targets, suggesting a single motoric effect under these conditions. Rooted in methodological differences between the studies, three possible explanations for this discrepancy can be found in the literature. Here, we demonstrate that the empirical discrepancy is rooted in the following methodological difference: Whereas Abrams and Dobkin (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20:467-477, 1994b) administered central arrow and peripheral onset targets in separate blocks, Taylor and Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26: [1639][1640][1641][1642][1643][1644][1645][1646][1647][1648][1649][1650][1651][1652][1653][1654][1655][1656] 2000) randomly intermixed these stimuli in a single block. Our results demonstrate that (1) blocking central arrow targets fosters a spatial attentional control setting that allows for the long-lasting IOR normally generated by irrelevant peripheral cues to be filtered and (2) repeated sensory stimulation has no direct effect on the magnitude of IOR measured by saccadic responses to targets presented about 1 s after a peripheral cue.