Retrieval of implicit inhibitory processes: The impact of visual field, object-identity, and memory dynamics

Abstract

After exogenously cueing attention to a peripheral location, the return of attention and response to the location can be inhibited. We demonstrate that these inhibitory mechanisms of attention can be associated with objects and can be automatically and implicitly retrieved over relatively long periods. Furthermore, we also show that when face stimuli are associated with inhibition, the effect is more robust for faces presented in the left visual field. This effect can be even more spatially specific, where most robust inhibition is obtained for faces presented in the upper as compared to the lower visual field. Finally, it is revealed that the inhibition is associated with an object's identity, as inhibition moves with an object to a new location; and that the retrieved inhibition is only transiently present after retrieval.

The effect of previous trial type on inhibition of return

“…To the best of our knowledge, this is the first demonstration that some form of automatic memory check may influence the magnitude of IOR on a trial-by-trial basis. It is worth noting, however, that Tipper and colleagues (e.g., Kessler & Tipper, 2004;Tipper, Grison, & Kessler, 2003) have argued that their demonstrations of long term IOR may reflect the encoding into memory of inhibition that is reinstated at a later time. Moreover, have argued that IOR may be attributable to some form of spatial working memory.…”

The upper-hemifield advantage for masked face processing: Not just an attentional bias

“…While this process is unquestionably efficient, we have highlighted that this aspect of face perception is nevertheless still subject to modulation by factors such as spatial location and spatial attention. A natural extension of this finding, and one that is already hinted at in the literature, would be to examine whether other aspects of face perception, such as identity or emotion recognition, exhibit a similar upper hemifield advantage (Felisberti & McDermott, 2013;Kessler & Tipper, 2004;Liu & Ioannides, 2010). Given that some have suggested that visual field biases for face processing are distinct to individual participants (Afraz et al, 2010), another intriguing line of future enquiry is how individual differences in visual field shape (Fortenbaugh, Silver, & Robertson, 2015) might influence the UVF advantage for faces we have documented here.…”

“…The upper-hemifield advantage for face processing: Not a product of attentional bias Although vertical asymmetry in face perception has received far less attention than the well-documented laterality effects for faces, there is nonetheless increasing evidence to suggest that face processing may be superior in the upper hemifield relative to the lower hemifield (Coolican, Eskes, McMullen, & Lecky, 2008;Kessler & Tipper, 2004;Liu & Ioannides, 2010). In a recent study, we provided what might be considered the strongest evidence to date for a UVF advantage in face perception, demonstrating that masked faces affect the sex-categorization of a target face at an earlier stage of stimulus processing when presented in the UVF compared to the LVF (Quek & Finkbeiner, 2014a).…”

A working memory bias for alcohol-related stimuli depends on drinking score.

“…Our previous research on selective attention (Kessler & Tipper, 2004;Tipper, Grison, & Kessler, 2003) has taken one step further by showing that selective attentional states do not only bias encoding but are also stored alongside a stimulus (e.g., face) into episodic memory and can influence processing (again) upon retrieval. This suggests that an AAB may influence WM processing also upon retrieval and not only during encoding.…”

“…In its simplest conception attention is proposed to operate as a filter or a gateway to working memory, where information must be attended before it can be encoded (Cowan, 1999;Dehaene et al, 2003;O'Reilly, Braver, & Cohen, 1998) and/or successfully retrieved (Baars & Franklin, 2003;Kessler & Tipper, 2004;Oberauer, 2002). Cowan's (1999) suggestion that the allocation of attention is under the joint control of automatic (salient habituation) and voluntary (central executive) processes is of great relevance to the relationship between AAB and AMB, as it proposes that the automatic allocation of attention is particularly influenced by stimuli with a special significance to the participant, which are then encoded more efficiently into WM (Cowan, 1999; see also Wood & Cowan, 1995).…”