No evidence for an independent retinotopic reference frame for inhibition of return

Malevich, Tatiana; Rybina, Elena; Ivtushok, Elizaveta I.; Ardasheva, Liubov; MacInnes, W. Joseph

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103107

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Change detection also breaks the assumption that the search array will remain stable across multiple fixations leading to a state in which inhibitory tags are not maintained. IOR as a facilitator in search is possible because it is typically coded in scene/environmental coordinates (Malevich et al, 2020;Maylor & Hockey, 1985;Posner & Cohen, 1984), and scene removal has been shown to eliminate IOR (Klein & MacInnes, 1999;Müller & Mühlenen, 2000;Takeda & Yagi, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…IOR may serve an additional purpose in visual search by inhibiting previously attended locations and reducing the likelihood of refixation at previously attended locations (Klein, 1988;Posner & Cohen, 1984). It can be encoded in scene coordinates (Malevich et al, 2020;Maylor & Hockey, 1985), it is long lasting (Samuel & Kat, 2003), and it is observed in serial search (Klein, 1988). IOR was thus chosen as the key mechanism for preventing refixations in many computational models of salience (Itti & Koch, 2000;Krasovskaya & MacInnes, 2019 for an overview).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Between the Scenes

Nadezhda

Dovbnyuk

Merzon

et al. 2022

Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We constantly move our eyes to new information while inspecting a scene, but these patterns of eye movements change based on the task and goals of the observer. Inhibition of return (IOR) may facilitate visual search by reducing the likelihood of revisiting previously attended locations. However, IOR may present in any visual task, or it may be search-specific. We investigated the presence of IOR in foraging, memorization, change detection, and two versions of visual search. One version of search used a static search array that remained stable throughout the trial, but the second used a scene flickering paradigm similar to the change detection task. IOR was observed in both versions of visual search, memorization, and foraging, but not in change detection. Visual search and change detection both had temporal nonscene components, and we observed that IOR could be maintained despite the scene removal but only for search. Although IOR is maintained in scene coordinates, short disruptions to this scene are insufficient to completely remove the inhibitory tags. Finally, we compare return saccades in trials without a probe and observe fewer return saccades in tasks for which IOR was observed, providing further evidence that IOR might serve as a novelty drive.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Between the Scenes

Nadezhda

Dovbnyuk

Merzon

et al. 2022

Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This task was carried out to examine whether the IOR effect at the remapped retinal locus, if any, was an artifact caused by the spillover of IOR at the cued location (He et al, 2015;Malevich et al, 2020). The display setup was the same as that in the return-saccade task, except that no saccade was required before the onset of the probe.…”

Section: No-remapping Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This observation contradicts the fact that IOR is closely linked to the oculomotor system (for a recent review of the neural basis of IOR, see Satel et al, 2019). Recent studies have revealed robust IOR effects in both eye-centered and world-centered coordinates immediately following saccades (Hilchey et al, 2014;Krüger & Hunt, 2013;Mathôt & Theeuwes, 2010;Pertzov et al, 2010;Yan et al, 2016; but see Malevich et al, 2020; see Fig. 1c-d for a graphical review), indicating that IOR is natively coded in eyecentered brain maps but (predictively) remaps to maintain at spatially relevant locations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

Predictive remapping leaves a behaviorally measurable attentional trace on eye-centered brain maps

Yan

Wang

2021

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does the brain maintain spatial attention despite the retinal displacement of objects by saccades? A possible solution is to use the vector of an upcoming saccade to compensate for the shift of objects on eye-centered (retinotopic) brain maps. In support of this hypothesis, previous studies have revealed attentional effects at the future retinal locus of an attended object, just before the onset of saccades. A critical yet unresolved theoretical issue is whether predictively remapped attentional effects would persist long enough on eye-centered brain maps, so no external input (goal, expectation, reward, memory, etc.) is needed to maintain spatial attention immediately following saccades. The present study examined this issue with inhibition of return (IOR), an attentional effect that reveals itself in both world-centered and eye-centered coordinates, and predictively remaps before saccades. In the first task, a saccade was introduced to a cueing task ("nonreturn-saccade task") to show that IOR is coded in world-centered coordinates following saccades. In a second cueing task, two consecutive saccades were executed to trigger remapping and to dissociate the retinal locus relevant to remapping from the cued retinal locus ("return-saccade" task). IOR was observed at the remapped retinal locus 430-ms following the (first) saccade that triggered remapping. A third cueing task ("no-remapping" task) further revealed that the lingering IOR effect left by remapping was not confounded by the attention spillover. These results together show that predictive remapping leaves a robust attentional trace on eye-centered brain maps. This retinotopic trace is sufficient to sustain spatial attention for a few hundred milliseconds following saccades.Keywords Eye movements . Inhibition of return . Predictive remapping . Spatial attention . Visual stability Rapid eye movements (saccades) shift objects on the retina 2-3 times a second while we are awake (Rayner, 1998). How does the brain maintain a stable and continuous perception of the external world despite the retinal displacement of objects by saccades? One possibility is that the brain represents objects in world-centered or spatiotopic coordinates (e.g., d'Avossa et al., 2007;Turi & Burr, 2012;Zimmermann et al., 2011). Following each saccade, the shifted retinal image * Zhiguo Wang

show abstract

“…While robust evidence suggests the coordinate system of attentional facilitation primarily resides in retinotopic coordinates, maintaining visual stability in spatiotopic coordinates is still crucial, and it is possible that other types of attentional mechanisms may operate in spatiotopic coordinates. For example, previous studies showed evidence for spatiotopic inhibition of return (IOR; Hilchey et al, 2012;Malevich et al, 2020;Maylor & Hockey, 1985;Pertzov et al, 2010;Posner & Cohen, 1984) which is an attentional bias against recently attended locations (Posner, 1980). However, findings on the coordinate system of IOR are less clear-cut than the retinotopic facilitation effects described above (Abrams & Pratt, 2000;Krüger & Hunt, 2013;Mathôt & Theeuwes, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From the eye to the world: Spatial suppression is primarily coded in retinotopic coordinates but can be learned in spatiotopic coordinates

Chang,

Golomb

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attention is multifaceted, with evidence for distinct mechanisms of attentional facilitation and suppression processes. Interestingly, much less is known about the spatial coordinate system of suppression compared to that of facilitation. The present study examined the coordinate system of spatial suppression by manipulating gaze position and distractor regularities, asking whether suppression is coded in retinotopic (eye-centered) and/or spatiotopic (world-centered) coordinates, and if this varies with more ecological and dynamic contexts. In the current study, we demonstrate that learned spatial suppression primarily transfers across gaze position in retinotopic coordinates; however, in more dynamic contexts favoring spatiotopic information, spatial suppression can be learned in spatiotopic coordinates. These results suggest that the default coordinate system of spatial suppression is retinotopic, but suppression can be rapidly learned in spatiotopic coordinates when a spatiotopic representation is beneficial in dynamic contexts.

show abstract

No evidence for an independent retinotopic reference frame for inhibition of return

Cited by 5 publications

References 57 publications

Between the Scenes

Between the Scenes

Predictive remapping leaves a behaviorally measurable attentional trace on eye-centered brain maps

From the eye to the world: Spatial suppression is primarily coded in retinotopic coordinates but can be learned in spatiotopic coordinates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About