Inhibitory cueing effects following manual and saccadic responses to arrow cues

Abstract

With two cueing tasks, in the present study we examined output-based inhibitory cueing effects (ICEs) with manual responses to arrow targets following manual or saccadic responses to arrow cues. In all experiments, ICEs were observed when manual localization responses were required to both the cues and targets, but only when the cue-target onset asynchrony (CTOA) was 2,000 ms or longer. In contrast, when saccadic responses were made in response to the cues, ICEs were only observed with CTOAs of 2,000 ms or less-and only when an auditory cue-back signal was used. The present study also showed that the magnitude of ICEs following saccadic responses to arrow cues decreased with time, much like traditional inhibition-of-return effects. The magnitude of ICEs following manual responses to arrow cues, however, appeared later in time and had no sign of decreasing even 3 s after cue onset. These findings suggest that ICEs linked to skeletomotor activation do exist and that the ICEs evoked by oculomotor activation can carry over to the skeletomotor system.

Intervening response events between identification targets do not always turn repetition benefits into repetition costs

“…Concerning stimulus-response repetition costs, Spadaro et al (2012) have demonstrated their robustness in simple stimulus-identification tasks with intervening response events. Perhaps more importantly still, recent data suggest that stimulus-response repetition costs may be observed in simple stimulus-identification tasks at fixation without intervening response events, as long as the interval between the cue and target is extended beyond the typical CTOA (Ding, He, Satel, & Wang, 2016;Avery, Cowper-Smith, & Westwood, 2015). It thus appears as if, at least in relatively simple two stimulus identification tasks at fixation, some form of inhibition may-eventually-follow from the initial cue representation.…”

Saccadic landing positions reveal that eye movements are affected by distractor-based retrieval

“…Thus, the neurophysiological evidence neither rules out nor confirms the possibility of eye movements being affected by retrieval-based binding processes. However, given some rather distinct pathways for saccade generation opens up the possibility of effector-specificitywhich might be the reason for differences that have been previously observed between manual and eye responses (e.g., for inhibition-related effects, Ding et al, 2016;Eng et al, 2017;Malienko et al, 2018;Taylor & Klein, 2000;in Hick's law, Kveraga et al, 2002;Lawrence et al, 2008;see Proctor & Schneider, 2018, for a review; localization responses to moving targets, Lisi & Cavanagh, 2017; and several other tasks, see Bompas et al, 2017). Moreover, the joint Simon effect (Sebanz et al, 2003) is not observed for saccadic responses (Liepelt et al, 2019), thus raising doubt that all actions are processed in the same way irrespective of the effector involved.…”