Peripheral stimuli generate different forms of inhibition of return when participants make prosaccades versus antisaccades to them

Redden, Ralph S.; Hilchey, Matthew D.; Klein, Raymond M.

doi:10.3758/s13414-016-1175-7

Cited by 9 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Chica et al, 2010), to compare the FLE/IOR between the cued and uncued locations, or to compare the FLE/IOR between prosaccade and antisaccade conditions (c.f. Redden et al, 2016). These experiments in future studies will make more comprehensive understanding about what is actually altered when IOR occurs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…On the one hand, some studies have argued that the oculomotor system pertains to some types of IOR; accordingly, a perceptual process is modulated when fixation is maintained, whereas a motoric process is modulated when eye movements are made to a cued location (Chica et al, 2010;Taylor & Klein, 2000). On the other hand, several studies have argued that the activation state of the reflexive oculomotor system controls which type of IOR is generated; accordingly, a perceptual form is generated when the system is suppressed, whereas a motoric form is generated when the system is not suppressed (Hilchey, Dohmen, Crowder, & Klein, 2016;Hilchey et al, 2014;Redden, Hilchey, & Klein, 2016; for a review, see . In either case, it has been suggested that a blocked design is not an optimal procedure to segregate these different types of IOR (Hilchey, Klein, & Ivanoff, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Inhibition of return modulates the flash-lag effect

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transient events are known to draw exogenous attention, and visual processing at the attended location is transiently facilitated, but after several hundred milliseconds, attentional processing at the cued location becomes poorer than processing elsewhere, resulting in a slower reaction to a target stimulus that subsequently appears at the cued location. Despite a number of previous studies on this effect, termed inhibition of return (IOR), it is still unclear whether a perceptual process related to the subjective onset time of the target stimulus is disrupted when IOR occurs. In the present study, we used a distinct visual phenomenon termed the flash-lag effect (FLE) as a tool to quantify IOR. The FLE is an illusion in which a flashed stimulus appears to lag behind a moving stimulus, despite being physically aligned. We used an identical stimulus configuration and asked observers to conduct two independent tasks in separate sessions. The first was a simple reaction task to measure the onset reaction time (RT) to an abruptly appearing target. The second was an orientation judgment task to measure the degree of the FLE. Both the RT and the FLE were found to be altered in accordance with IOR, and a significant correlation was demonstrated between the changes in the RT and those in the FLE. These results demonstrate that the perceptual process related to the stimulus onset can be compromised by IOR.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhibition of return modulates the flash-lag effect

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To provide a firm basis for comparison with the literature, we focused on studies that were previously reviewed by Redden, Hilchey, and Klein (2016). These studies, like ours, had used a discrimination task and reported both RT and accuracy for each condition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Rescorla’s truly random control condition to measure truly exogenous covert orienting

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of exogenous covert orienting use peripheral cues (stimuli) that are spatially uninformative about the locations of subsequent targets. When the time course of the cue's influence on performance is explored (by varying the cue target onset asynchrony; CTOA), a biphasic pattern is usually seen with better performance at the cued location when the CTOA is short (typically attributed to attentional capture) and worse performance at the cued location when the CTOA is long (attributed to inhibition of return). However, while spatially uninformative, these cues (even when a nonaging foreperiod is used) entail a temporal contingency with the subsequent target. Consequently, this so-called capture may reflect an unintended consequence of endogenous allocation of temporal attention. Following Lawrence and Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 560-572, 2013) we used Rescorla's (Psychological Review, 74, 71-80, 1967) truly random control condition to ensure that the spatially uninformative peripheral stimuli were temporally completely uninformative. Even such completely uninformative peripheral stimuli generated the prototypical biphasic pattern.

show abstract

“…In a variant of our study recently conducted by Hilchey, Dohmen, Crowder, and Klein (2016), ICEs were generated by pro-or anti-saccades to peripheral cues and measured with spatially congruent manual localization responses to central arrow targets (also see Redden, Hilchey, & Klein, 2016, for responses to peripheral targets). Indeed, with oculomotor activation during prosaccades, they found a robust ICE that was predominantly output based.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus-response incompatibility eliminates inhibitory cueing effects with saccadic but not manual responses

Eng

Lim

Kwon

et al. 2017

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are thought to be two forms of inhibition of return (IOR) depending on whether the oculomotor system is activated or suppressed. When saccades are allowed, output-based IOR is generated, whereas input-based IOR arises when saccades are prohibited. In a series of 4 experiments, we mixed or blocked compatible and incompatible trials with saccadic or manual responses to investigate whether cueing effects would follow the same pattern as those observed with more traditional peripheral onsets and central arrows. In all experiments, an uninformative cue was displayed, followed by a cue-back stimulus that was either red or green, indicating whether a compatible or incompatible response was required. The results showed that IOR was indeed observed for compatible responses in all tasks, whereas IOR was eliminated for incompatible trials-but only with saccadic responses. These findings indicate that the dissociation between input- and output-based forms of IOR depends on more than just oculomotor activation, providing further support for the existence of an inhibitory cueing effect that is distinct to the manual response modality.

show abstract

Peripheral stimuli generate different forms of inhibition of return when participants make prosaccades versus antisaccades to them

Cited by 9 publications

References 28 publications

Inhibition of return modulates the flash-lag effect

Inhibition of return modulates the flash-lag effect

Using Rescorla’s truly random control condition to measure truly exogenous covert orienting

Stimulus-response incompatibility eliminates inhibitory cueing effects with saccadic but not manual responses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About