On the nature of the delayed “inhibitory” Cueing effects generated by uninformative arrows at fixation

Abstract

When the interval between a spatially uninformative arrow and a visual target is short (<500 ms), response times (RTs) are fastest when the arrow points to the target. When this interval exceeds 500 ms, there is a near-universal absence of an effect of the arrow on RTs. Contrary to this expected pattern of results, Taylor and Klein (J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26:1639-1656, 2000 observed that RTs were slowest when a tobe-localized visual target occurred in the direction of a fixated arrow presented 1 s earlier (i.e., an "inhibitory" Cueing effect; ICE). Here we examined which factor(s) may have allowed the arrow to generate an ICE. Our experiments indicated that the ICE was a side effect of subthreshold response activation attributable to a task-induced association between the arrow and a keypress response. Because the cause of this ICE was more closely related to subthreshold keypress activation than to oculomotor activation, we considered that the effect might be more similar to the negative compatibility effect (NCE) than to inhibition of return (IOR). This similarity raises the possibility that classical IOR, when caused by a spatially uninformative peripheral onset event and measured by a keypress response to a subsequent onset, might represent, in part, another instance of an NCE. Serendipitously, we discovered that context (i.e., whether an uninformative peripheral onset could occur at the time of an uninformative central arrow) ultimately determined whether the "inhibitory" aftermath of automatic response activation would affect output or input pathways.

In search of a reliable electrophysiological marker of oculomotor inhibition of return

“…In the present design, we deliberately ensured that the central arrow cues had no manual responses associated with them so as to create a condition in which IOR was unequivocally caused by oculomotor response activation. Previous work has demonstrated that IOR, or IOR‐like effects, are spuriously generated when cues are associated with manual responses (Hilchey et al., ). The peripheral signals in the present design were associated with both oculomotor and key press responses.…”

“…This departure from common practice in EEG research on IOR is noteworthy because we will be able to visualize the electrophysiological signature of IOR under conditions in which cues and targets are not spatially coincident. Importantly, because arrows that are not associated with a response seldom, if ever, generate IOR or IOR-like phenomena at late cue-target onset asynchronies (see Hilchey, Satel, Ivanoff, & Klein, 2013, for a review and experiments demonstrating how arrows generate IOR or IOR-like effects), we are assured that the IOR effect in this case is fundamentally caused by the saccadic eye movement. This condition is thus likely to yield the form of IOR that Posner et al (1985) generated (Experiment 3) and conceptualized in their flagship paper.…”

Vertical asymmetries and inhibition of return: Effects of spatial and non-spatial cueing on behavior and visual ERPs

“…In this context, Taylor and Klein (2000) proposed two mutually exclusive forms of IOR that depend essentially on whether the oculomotor system is activated (the motor form) or suppressed (the perceptual/attentional form). These forms have been recently observed both in behavioral execution and in visual event-related potential (ERP) results (Hilchey et al, 2013;Satel et al, 2013). Besides the probable implication of several processes in the generation of IOR, a reason for the current uncertainty on its origins may be related to several experimental factors affecting the presence, time course, and magnitude of IOR (Klein, 2000).…”

Motor IOR revealed for reaching

“…If the generation of a motor form of IOR requires activation in the relevant motor networks (cf. Hilchey, Klein, & Ivanoff, 2013), the mere presentation of peripheral cues might be insufficient to generate motor IOR in the reaching control system.…”