Inhibition of return is not a foraging facilitator in saccadic search and free viewing

Hooge, Ignace T. C.; Over, Eelco A. B.; Wezel, R.J.A. van; Frens, Maarten A.

doi:10.1016/j.visres.2005.01.030

Cited by 95 publications

(147 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

110

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, no such evidence was found in the fine-grained analysis of fixation position focusing on letter position with a fixated word. These results are consistent with recent results from scene viewing and search suggesting that temporal O-IOR need not be accompanied by spatial O-IOR (Hooge et al, 2005;Smith & Henderson, 2009, 2011a. Although reading is a relatively young skill from the perspective of evolution, it appears to draw on much older systems developed for controlling the dynamic allocation of attention and eye movements.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…In this way, O-IOR could facilitate eye movement control by helping observers avoid reinspecting recently fixated locations (Klein, 1988;Klein & MacInnes, 1999). Evidence concerning this hypothesis is currently mixed, with several reports of equal or greater refixation of previously fixated locations in visual search and scene viewing (Hooge et al, 2005;Smith & Henderson, 2009, 2011a, 2011b. In the present study, little evidence for spatial consequences of O-IOR on fixation probability was observed.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 58%

“…Oculomotor IOR (O-IOR) is an increase in saccade latencies when the eyes move back to a previously fixated location, as compared with a new control location (Klein & Hilchey, 2011). O-IOR, measured as an increase in fixation duration prior to a return saccade, has been reported in a variety of complex freeviewing tasks (Dodd, Van der Stigchel & Hollingworth, 2009;Farrell, Ludwig, Ellis & Gilchrist, 2010;Hooge & Frens, 2000;Hooge, Over, van Wezel & Frens, 2005;Klein & MacInnes, 1999;MacInnes & Klein, 2003;Ludwig, Farrell, Ellis & Gilchrist, 2009;Smith & Henderson, 2009, 2011aThomas et al, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Oculomotor inhibition of return in normal and mindless reading

Henderson

Luke

2012

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oculomotor inhibition of return (O-IOR) is an increase in saccade latency prior to an eye movement to a recently fixated location, as compared with other locations. To investigate O-IOR in reading, subjects participated in two conditions while their eye movements were recorded: normal reading and mindless reading with words replaced by geometric shapes. We investigated the manifestation of O-IOR in reading and whether it is related to extracting meaning from the text or is an oculomotor phenomenon. The results indicated that fixation durations prior to a saccade returning to the immediately preceding fixated word were longer than those to other words, consistent with O-IOR. Furthermore, fixation durations were longest prior to a saccade that returned the eyes to the specific character position in the word that had previously been fixated and dropped off as the distance between the previously fixated character and landing position increased. This result is consistent with the hypothesis that O-IOR is relatively precise in its application during reading and drops off as a gradient. Both of these results were found for text reading and for mindless reading, suggesting that they are consequences of oculomotor control, and not of language processing. Finally, although these temporal IOR effects were robust, no spatial consequences of IOR were observed: Previously fixated words and characters were as likely to be refixated as new words and characters.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 58%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Oculomotor inhibition of return in normal and mindless reading

Henderson

Luke

2012

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overt return of attention via eye movements has also been shown to experience delay (Klein & Hilchey 2011). Oculomotor IOR is thought to delay the programming of saccades to the previous fixation location (one back; Hooge, Over, van Wezel & Frens, 2005;Klein & MacInnes, 1999;MacInnes & Klein, 2003; and to the penultimate fixation location (two back; Dodd, Van der Stigchel & Hollingworth, 2009;Klein & MacInnes, 1999), and may even extend as far back as four fixations (four back; Dodd et al, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does oculomotor inhibition of return influence fixation probability during scene search?

Smith

Henderson

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oculomotor inhibition of return (IOR) is believed to facilitate scene scanning by decreasing the probability that gaze will return to a previously fixated location. This "foraging" hypothesis was tested during scene search and in response to sudden-onset probes at the immediately previous (one-back) fixation location. The latencies of saccades landing within 1º of the previous fixation location were elevated, consistent with oculomotor IOR. However, there was no decrease in the likelihood that the previous location would be fixated relative to distance-matched controls or an a priori baseline. Saccades exhibit an overall forward bias, but this is due to a general bias to move in the same direction and for the same distance as the last saccade (saccadic momentum) rather than to a spatially specific tendency to avoid previously fixated locations. We find no evidence that oculomotor IOR has a significant impact on return probability during scene search.Keywords Eye movement . Real-world scenes . Visual search . Inhibition of return . Fixation duration . Saccadic momentum When searching a cluttered scene for a hard-to-find object, we need to focus our eyes on each part of the scene in turn. The sequence of fixations (when the eyes are still) and saccades (ballistic movements of the eyes) provides insight into how a scene is processed in visual search (Findlay,

show abstract

“…A number of groups have questioned whether IOR is functional in influencing return probability during visual search (e.g., Hooge, Over, vanWenzel, & Frens, 2005;Smith & Henderson, 2009), while others have produced evidence for its effect in search and suggested that it may have an influence on up to the five most recently inspected items (Snyder & Kingstone, 2000), and that these effects may be graded, with the most recently fixated items having more inhibition (Boot, McCarley, Kramer, & Peterson, 2004). Wang, Zhang, and Klein (2010) suggested that IOR operates in static or slower dynamic search, whereas they did not observe it in faster, dynamic search.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhibition of return functions within but not across searches

Höfler

Gilchrist

Körner

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inhibition of return (IOR) facilitates visual search by discouraging the reinspection of recently processed items. We investigated whether IOR operates across two consecutive searches of the same display for different targets. In Experiment 1, we demonstrated that IOR is present within each of the two searches. In Experiment 2, we found no evidence for IOR across searches. In Experiment 3, we showed that IOR is present across the two searches when the first search is interrupted, suggesting that the completion of the search is what causes the resetting of IOR. We concluded that IOR is a partially flexible process that can be reset when the task completes, but not necessarily when it changes. When resetting occurs, this flexibility ensures that the inhibition of previously visited locations does not interfere with the new search.

show abstract

Inhibition of return is not a foraging facilitator in saccadic search and free viewing

Cited by 95 publications

References 27 publications

Oculomotor inhibition of return in normal and mindless reading

Oculomotor inhibition of return in normal and mindless reading

Does oculomotor inhibition of return influence fixation probability during scene search?

Inhibition of return functions within but not across searches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About