Spatial gradients of oculomotor inhibition of return in deaf and normal adults

Jayaraman, S.; Klein, Raymond M.; Hilchey, Matthew D.; Patil, Gouri Shanker; Mishra, Ramesh Kumar

doi:10.1007/s00221-015-4439-x

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An unusual effect in the SRTs of Experiment 1 was that they were equally slow, irrespective of whether the target location or hemifield repeated. Why weren't responses especially slow when the target location repeated, as was shown by previous eye movement research in target-target cueing paradigms (e.g., Jayaraman, Klein, Hilchey, Patil, & Mishra, 2016)? It could still be the case that performing a fine-grained perceptual analysis of the target required focal attention, which produced some amount of facilitation at the prior target location that added with any inhibition that was generated by orienting to it, as was suggested by Maljkovic and Nakayama (1996).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 82%

Is attention really biased toward the last target location in visual search? Attention, response rules, distractors, and eye movements

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The visual search and target-target cueing literatures have reached opposite conclusions about whether a shift of attention is biased toward or away from, respectively, previously attended target locations. In this article, we aimed to figure out why. The main differences between the two experimental approaches concern (1) the stimulus-response translation rules (Bwhat^identification keypresses vs. Bwhere^localization responses), (2) the amount of attention required in order to identify the target, and (3) distractor presence or absence. Experiment 1 tested the role of stimulus-response translation rules by requiring both an eye movement Bwhere^response and a keypress Bwhat^response to each target, in a typical search paradigm. Eye movements showed a bias away from the vicinity of the previous target, whereas keypresses showed a bias toward the previous target location, but only when the keypress response repeated. Experiment 2 removed the keypress identification requirement, to test whether reducing the amount of attention to the target would alter the eye movement bias; it did not. Experiment 3 removed the distractors, to test whether eliminating the potential for distractor location effects would alter the eye movement bias; it did, by accentuating the eye movement bias against the last target location. Collectively, the findings revealed that different stimulusresponse translation rules and distractor-processing requirements are the main reasons for the discrepancy, while demonstrating that shifts of attention intrinsically tend away from prior target locations. The findings are generally consistent with episodicretrieval and inhibited spatial-reorienting theories.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 82%

Is attention really biased toward the last target location in visual search? Attention, response rules, distractors, and eye movements

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We conclude this because in this context, as in when eye movements are required toward cues or targets, IOR can be measured by manual and saccadic responses to arrows at fixation (Hilchey, Dohmen, Crowder, & Klein, 2016; Taylor & Klein, 2000). Second, and more compellingly, there are many eye movement studies without placeholder objects that demonstrate IOR (i.e., stimuli are simply presented against a uniform greyscale or black background; e.g., Abrams & Dobkin, 1994a, 1994b; Christie, Hilchey, & Klein, 2013; Hilchey, Klein, Satel, & Wang, 2012; Jayaraman, Klein, Hilchey, Patil, & Mishra, 2016; Mathôt & Theeuwes, 2010; Pertzov, Zohary, & Avidan, 2010; Vaughan, 1984; Wang, Satel, Hilchey, & Klein, 2012; Watanabe, 2001).…”

Section: Experiments 2a and 2bmentioning

confidence: 99%

Placeholders dissociate two forms of inhibition of return

Hilchey

Pratt

Christie

2018

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decades of research using Posner's classic spatial cueing paradigm has uncovered at least two forms of inhibition of return (IOR) in the aftermath of an exogenous, peripheral orienting cue. One prominent dissociation concerns the role of covert and overt orienting in generating IOR effects that relate to perception- and action-oriented processes, respectively. Another prominent dissociation concerns the role of covert and overt orienting in generating IOR effects that depend on object- and space-based representation, respectively. Our objective was to evaluate whether these dichotomies are functionally equivalent by manipulating placeholder object presence in the cueing paradigm. By discouraging eye movements throughout, Experiments 1A and 1B validated a perception-oriented form of IOR that depended critically on placeholders. Experiment 2A demonstrated that IOR was robust without placeholders when eye movements went to the cue and back to fixation before the manual response target. In Experiment 2B, we replicated Experiment 2A's procedures except we discouraged eye movements. IOR was observed, albeit only weakly and significantly diminished relative to when eye movements were involved. We conclude that action-oriented IOR is robust against placeholders but that the magnitude of perception-oriented IOR is critically sensitive to placeholder presence when unwanted oculomotor activity can be ruled out.

show abstract

“…IOR manifested in prolonged response times (RTs) to targets at the cued location and, importantly, RTs decreased as the cue-target distance increased, showing a clear spatial gradient for IOR. Other work suggests that this IOR gradient is unaffected by response modality (manual or saccadic; Christie et al, 2013;Wang et al, 2014) and can also be observed at previously foveated locations (Vaughan, 1984;Jayaraman, Klein, Hilchey, Patil, & Mishra, 2015). 1 In cueing tasks, the magnitude of IOR reaches its maximum about 300-500 ms following cue onset, and then steadily decreases (for reviews, see Klein, 2000;Samuel & Kat, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Inhibition of return revisited: Localized inhibition on top of a pervasive bias

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An inhibitory after-effect of attention, frequently referred to as inhibition of return (IOR), operates at a previously attended location to discourage perseverative orienting. Using the classic cueing task, previous work has shown that IOR is not restricted to a previously attended location, but rather spreads to adjacent visual space in a graded manner. The present study expands on this earlier work by exploring a wider visual region and a broader range of cue-target onset asynchronies (CTOAs) to characterize the temporal dynamics of the IOR gradient. The results reveal that the magnitude of IOR generated by cueing decreases exponentially as the CTOA increases. The width of the IOR gradient first increases and then decreases, with a temporal profile that is well captured by an alpha function. Importantly, the present study reveals that in addition to its rapidly decaying local properties, cue-induced IOR can include a pervasive inhibitory bias, which remains relatively stable across IOR's lifetime.

show abstract

Spatial gradients of oculomotor inhibition of return in deaf and normal adults

Cited by 12 publications

References 34 publications

Is attention really biased toward the last target location in visual search? Attention, response rules, distractors, and eye movements

Is attention really biased toward the last target location in visual search? Attention, response rules, distractors, and eye movements

Placeholders dissociate two forms of inhibition of return

Inhibition of return revisited: Localized inhibition on top of a pervasive bias

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About