Inhibition of Return in the Covert Deployment of Attention: Evidence from Human Electrophysiology

McDonald, John J.; Hickey, Clayton; Green, Jessica J.; Whitman, Jennifer C.

doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21042

Cited by 47 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With regard to PCN magnitude, the reduced amplitude for targets presented at previous target locations relative to both the target-at-neutral and target-at-distractor location conditions suggests, at first glance, that the overall salience computed for the target is reduced when it appears at the same location on consecutive trials. This would be closely in line with previous studies (Conci et al, 2011; Töllner et al, 2011) in which the PCN was likewise reduced for lower relative to higher target salience (see also McDonald et al, 2009, for reduced PCN waves when target locations were repeated within the time frame of IOR). With regard to the present study, however, such an interpretation has to remain speculative, as the PCN amplitude difference—and any difference in the subsequent ERL waves—may simply reflect a cascaded activation difference originating, e.g., from the preceding Ppc 4 .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…This PCN (also called N2-posterior-contralateral), which is generated in the ventral occipito-temporal cortex (see, e.g., Hopf et al, 2002), is widely accepted to reflect the deployment of focal attention in visual space (e.g., Luck and Hillyard, 1994; Eimer, 1996; Woodman and Luck, 1999; Hickey et al, 2006, 2009; McDonald et al, 2009; Töllner et al, 2012a). Of note, modulations of the PCN have been documented already for different types of non-spatial priming, including feature (Eimer et al, 2010) and dimension priming (Töllner et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What pops out in positional priming of pop-out: insights from event-related EEG lateralizations

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well established that, in visual pop-out search, reaction time (RT) performance is influenced by cross-trial repetitions versus changes of target-defining attributes. One instance of this is referred to as “positional priming of pop-out” (pPoP; Maljkovic and Nakayama, 1996). In positional PoP paradigms, the processing of the current target is examined depending on whether it occurs at the previous target or a previous distractor location, relative to a previously empty location (“neutral” baseline), permitting target facilitation and distractor inhibition to be dissociated. The present study combined RT measures with specific sensory- and motor-driven event-related lateralizations to track the time course of four distinct processing levels as a function of the target’s position across consecutive trials. The results showed that, relative to targets at previous target and “neutral” locations, the appearance of a target at a previous distractor location was associated with a delayed build-up of the posterior contralateral negativity wave, indicating that distractor positions are suppressed at early stages of visual processing. By contrast, presentation of a target at a previous target, relative to “neutral” and distractor locations, modulated the elicitation of the subsequent stimulus-locked lateralized readiness potential wave, indicating that post-selective response selection is facilitated if the target occurred at the same position as on the previous trial. Overall, the results of present study provide electrophysiological evidence for the idea that target location priming (RT benefits) does not originate from an enhanced coding of target saliency at repeated (target) locations; instead, they arise (near-) exclusively from processing levels subsequent to focal-attentional target selection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What pops out in positional priming of pop-out: insights from event-related EEG lateralizations

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, if the cue-target stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) was longer than 300 ms and the cue was uninformative with regard to target location, responses to the target at the cued location would be delayed, compared to responses to the target at the uncued location. This inhibitory effect is termed inhibition of return (IOR) (Posner and Cohen, 1984), which slows down attentional reorienting to the previously attended (cued) location, and thus increases the efficiency of visual search (Zhou and Chen, 2008; McDonald et al, 2009; Tian et al, 2011). Neurally, a dorsal frontoparietal network, including bilateral frontal eye field (FEF), the superior and inferior parietal cortex, are involved in the orienting network (Rosen et al, 1999; Corbetta and Shulman, 2002; Mayer et al, 2004; Zhou and Chen, 2008; Fan et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral and neural interaction between spatial inhibition of return and the Simon effect

Wang¹,

Fuentes²,

Vivas³

et al. 2013

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been well documented that the anatomically independent attention networks in the human brain interact functionally to achieve goal-directed behaviors. By combining spatial inhibition of return (IOR) which implicates the orienting network with some executive function tasks (e.g., the Stroop and the flanker tasks) which implicate the executive network, researchers consistently found that the interference effects are significantly reduced at cued compared to uncued locations, indicating the functional interaction between the two attention networks. However, a unique, but consistent effect is observed when spatial IOR is combined with the Simon effect: the Simon effect is significantly larger at the cued than uncued locations. To investigate the neural substrates underlying this phenomenon, we orthogonally combined the spatial IOR with the Simon effect in the present event-related fMRI study. Our behavioral data replicated previous results by showing larger Simon effect at the cued location. At the neural level, we found shared spatial representation system between spatial IOR and the Simon effect in bilateral posterior parietal cortex (PPC); spatial IOR specifically activated bilateral superior parietal cortex while the Simon effect specifically activated bilateral middle frontal cortex. Moreover, left precentral gyrus was involved in the neural interaction between spatial IOR and the Simon effect by showing significantly higher neural activity in the “Cued_Congruent” condition. Taken together, our results suggest that due to the shared spatial representation system in the PPC, responses were significantly facilitated when spatial IOR and the Simon effect relied on the same spatial representations, i.e., in the “Cued_Congruent” condition. Correspondingly, the sensorimotor system was significantly involved in the “Cued_Congruent” condition to fasten the responses, which indirectly resulted in the enhanced Simon effect at the cued location.

show abstract

“…Using a gaze cueing paradigm the authors showed that the N2pc is larger in incongruent trials (vs. congruent trials) where participant where mislocated by gaze to a target location. In the same vein, even previously attended target locations can inhibit the return of attention that in turn causes a reorienting of attention to a target (McDonald et al, 2009). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The face is more than its parts — Brain dynamics of enhanced spatial attention to schematic threat

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A rapid response to environmental threat is crucial for survival and requires an appropriate attention allocation toward its location. Visual search paradigms have provided evidence for the enhanced capture of attention by threatening faces. In two EEG experiments, we sought to determine whether the detection of threat requires complete faces or salient features underlying the facial expression. Measuring the N2pc component as an electrophysiological indicator of attentional selection we investigated participants searching for either a complete discrepant schematic threatening or friendly face within an array of neutral faces, or single features (eyebrows and eyes vs. eyebrows) of threatening and friendly faces. Threatening faces were detected faster compared to friendly faces. In accordance, threatening angry targets showed a more pronounced occipital N2pc between 200 and 300 ms than friendly facial targets. Moreover, threatening configurations, were detected more rapidly than friendly-related features when the facial configuration contained eyebrows and eyes. No differences were observed when only a single feature (eyebrows) had to be detected. Threatening-related and friendly-related features did not show any differences in the N2pc across all configuration conditions. Taken together, the findings provide direct electrophysiological support for rapid prioritized attention to facial threat, an advantage that seems not be driven by low level visual features.

show abstract

Inhibition of Return in the Covert Deployment of Attention: Evidence from Human Electrophysiology

Cited by 47 publications

References 32 publications

What pops out in positional priming of pop-out: insights from event-related EEG lateralizations

What pops out in positional priming of pop-out: insights from event-related EEG lateralizations

Behavioral and neural interaction between spatial inhibition of return and the Simon effect

The face is more than its parts — Brain dynamics of enhanced spatial attention to schematic threat

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About