The presence of a nonresponding effector increases inhibition of return

Ivanoff, Jason; Klein, Raymond M.

doi:10.3758/bf03196166

Cited by 82 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result, RTs are slowed to targets that appear in the same location as the initial onset, relative to targets that appear in a different location. As well, false alarms are less frequent when nontarget events occur in the same location as the initial onset rather than in a different location (Ivanoff & Klein, 2001, 2004Taylor & Ivanoff, 2003). And, as observed by Ivanoff and Taylor (2006), countermanded responses are less likely to be executed erroneously when the target location is subject to IOR.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Larger IOR effects following forget than following remember instructions depend on exogenous attentional withdrawal and target localization

Taylor

Fawcett

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When words are onset in the visual periphery, inhibition of return (IOR) for a subsequent target is larger when those words receive an intervening forget instruction than when they receive a remember instruction Taylor (Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 613-629, 2005). The present study manipulated the allocation of endogenous and exogenous attention to assess the source of the forget > remember IOR difference. We determined that the forget > remember IOR difference likely arises from the differential withdrawal of exogenous-rather than endogenous-attention. Furthermore, this forget > remember IOR difference occurs only when a spatially compatible localization response is required; it does not occur when a simple detection response or a perceptual discrimination is required. This suggests that the forget > remember difference in the magnitude of IOR is not due to differences in perceptual/ attentional processing. Instead, an instruction to remember or forget biases spatial responses in accordance with whether a location has previously contained relevant or irrelevant information. We suggest that directed forgetting in an itemmethod paradigm is not accomplished by changes in attention; rather, the changes in attention are coincident with changes in memory and may serve to bias later responses away from a source of unreliable information.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Larger IOR effects following forget than following remember instructions depend on exogenous attentional withdrawal and target localization

Taylor

Fawcett

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is what one might expect given that peripheral cues elicit exogenous shifts of attention and IOR. On the other hand, if IOR involves late, decision-related components (Ivanoff & Klein, 2001), then the IOR effect should interact with S-R probability. Any interaction suggests that these effects operate on a common stage of processing.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus-response probability and inhibition of return

Ivanoff

Klein

2004

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…An earlier study that pointed to the independence of IOR from motoric influences (Handy et al, 1999) has been questioned on the grounds that motoric components may not have been entirely excluded from that study because it employed a unilateral backward mask (Ivanoff & Klein, 2001). That concern has been addressed in the present work through the use of bilateral masks that yielded findings homologous to those of Handy et al In this respect, the present study supplements Handy et al's findings by adding a temporal estimate of IOR, which in turn buttresses the conclusion that IOR can affect the perceptual quality of visual processing independent of motoric considerations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The time required for perceptual (nonmotoric) processing in IOR

Spalek¹,

Lollo²

2007

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual search is something we do routinely every day. We select a coin for the parking meter from a handful of coins, or we single out an icon from among a crowd of other icons on our computer desktop. Laboratory studies have been aimed at discovering the rules that govern the efficiency of visual search. One such rule, known as inhibition of return (IOR;Posner & Cohen, 1984), is held to be effective in preventing observers from reexamining locations that have already been searched. A rule such as this would promote the examination of novel locations, thereby improving search efficiency.In a typical IOR experiment, the initial display consists of a central fixation point and two placeholders, one on either side of fixation. A cue stimulus appears briefly in one of the peripheral locations and then reappears briefly at fixation. A target stimulus is then presented, and the observer is required to respond to it as quickly as possible. IOR describes the finding that the observer's reaction time (RT) to a target presented at the previously cued location is slower than it is to a target presented at an uncued location (Posner & Cohen, 1984).In the predominant view, this increased latency is attributed to some form of inhibitory mechanism acting at either the perceptual (see, e.g., Abrams & Dobkin, 1994) or the motor (see, e.g., Taylor & Klein, 1998) level. However, a determination of whether the locus of IOR is perceptual or motor (or both) has been hampered by the common practice of using RT as the dependent measure. Because motor factors are inherently involved in RT, an uncontaminated estimate of the involvement of perceptual factors has been difficult to obtain (see, e.g., Müller & von Mühlenen, 1996).The perceptual and motor components of IOR were decoupled in a study by Handy, Jha, and Mangun (1999), who used identification of a masked target, rather than RT, as the primary response measure. By employing signaldetection methodology, a measure of perceptual sensitivity (d ) was obtained that was independent of motor factors. Handy et al.'s results revealed both classes of effects typically found in exogenous cuing studies: facilitation (larger d at the cued relative to the uncued location) at a short cue-target onset asynchrony (CTOA) and IOR (relatively smaller d at the cued location) at a long CTOA. On the basis of these results, Handy et al. concluded that the mechanism underlying IOR affects the perceptual quality of a target stimulus independently of motoric factors.Although the signal-detection methodology (d measure) employed by Handy et al. (1999) did provide evidence for a perceptual component of IOR and for reduced sensitivity at the cued location, it did not provide evidence regarding the period of time required for the perceptual processing of the target at the cued and uncued locations. The present need is for estimates of the speed of the perceptual system at the cued relative to the uncued target locations in the absence of motoric factors. If it is the case that IOR reflects a modulation of perce...

show abstract

The presence of a nonresponding effector increases inhibition of return

Cited by 82 publications

References 35 publications

Larger IOR effects following forget than following remember instructions depend on exogenous attentional withdrawal and target localization

Larger IOR effects following forget than following remember instructions depend on exogenous attentional withdrawal and target localization

Stimulus-response probability and inhibition of return

The time required for perceptual (nonmotoric) processing in IOR

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About