Inhibitory and facilitatory effects of cue onset and offset

Abstract

The response speed to a visual target is modulated by the position of previous events (cues) even if their position is not predictive of the target position. The modulation has been considered biphasic, with an early facilitatory and a later inhibitory component. We conducted three experiments that investigated the importance of the onset and oset features of the cue for the facilitatory and inhibitory eects and estimated their separate and joint eects. The two possible target locations, one in the right and one in the left visual ®eld, were indicated by two empty boxes, and the cue consisted of the onset and/or oset of an arrowhead located just under one of the two boxes. Dierent time intervals were used between cue and target. Subjects were instructed to ignore the cue and to respond to the target (a cross inside one of the two boxes). The data showed only consistent eects of inhibition (inhibition of return) with the long intervals, but the pattern was dierent depending on the cue type. The amount of inhibition was much greater when the onset of the cue was followed by its oset. Apparently, inhibition of return depended on the dynamic changes of the cue.

Differential redundancy gain in onset detection versus offset detection

“…Further differences between stimulus onsets and offsets in a spatial cuing task were obtained by Pratt and Hirshhorn (2003). These authors demonstrated that offset cues produced considerably earlier effects of inhibition of return (IOR) than did onset cues (see also Gawryszewski, Thomaz, Machado-Pinheiro, & Sant'Anna, 1994;Riggio, Bello, & Umiltà, 1998;and Samuel & Weiner, 2001, for further results of onset-offset investigations in spatial cuing). Hopfinger and Maxwell (2005) conducted an electrophysiological study investigating bottom-up, sensory-driven effects of onset and offset stimuli on subsequent stimulus processing.…”

The presence of a nonresponding effector increases inhibition of return

“…Almost all single-response IOR experiments have used target-absent trials as catch trials (Donder's a-task, used by Maylor & Hockey, 1985;Posner & Cohen, 1984;Possamaï, 1986Possamaï, , 1991Reuter-Lorenz et al, 1996;Riggio, Bello, & Umiltà, 1998). A disadvantage of this task (Sperling & Dosher, 1986) is that FAs cannot be attributed to a cued trial or an uncued trial.…”

Reorienting attention and inhibition of return

“…A variety of experimental variables have been shown to affect the presence, onset latency, and magnitude of IOR. Some of these factors are response task (see, e.g., Lupiáñez, Milán, Tornay, Madrid, & Tudela, 1997), target intensity (see, e.g., Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996), target modality (Reuter-Lorenz et al, 1996), and the type of cue used (Riggio, Bello, & Umiltà, 1998). However, relatively few studies have systematically examined how these variables interact.…”