Vector averaging of inhibition of return

Klein, Raymond M.; Christie, John; Morris, Eric P.

doi:10.3758/bf03196375

Cited by 45 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This prediction suggests that there should be a spatial gradient of inhibitory strength that surrounds the originally cued location. This notion is consistent with the results of several studies that have looked at the spatial distribution of IOR showing that the strength of IOR gradually decreases as the distance between the cue and the target increases (Bennett & Pratt, 2001;Collie, Maruff, Yucel, Danckert, & Currie, 2000;Klein, Christie, & Morris, 2005;Klein & MacInnes, 1999;Maylor & Hockey, 1985;Pratt, Adam, & McAuliffe, 1998).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Reconceptualizing inhibition of return as

Dukewich

2009

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Reconceptualizing inhibition of return as

Dukewich

2009

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We discovered that the bulk of the IOR effect with multiple cues, in both the previous and present studies, can be explained by the distance between the target and the center of gravity of the cue array. The present results are consistent with the proposal advanced by Klein et al, (2005) suggesting that this IOR effect is due to population coding in the oculomotor pathways (e.g., the superior colliculus) driving the eye movement system toward the center of gravity of the cued array. …”

supporting

confidence: 82%

“…Langley, Gayzur, Saville, Morlock, and Bagne (2011) recently replicated Klein et al (2005) with a larger sample size. The one exceptional finding was that Langley et al obtained a small (5-ms) but significant advantage for uncued targets following multiple cues whose center of gravity was at fixation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

Inhibition of return is at the midpoint of simultaneous cues

Christie

Hilchey

Klein

2013

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When multiple cues are presented simultaneously, Klein, Christie, and Morris (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12:295-300, 2005) found a gradient of inhibition (of return, IOR), with the slowest simple manual detection responses occurring to targets in the direction of the center of gravity of the cues. Here, we explored the possibility of extending this finding to the saccade response modality, using methods of data analysis that allowed us to consider the relative contributions of the distance from the target to the center of gravity of the array of cues and the nearest element in the cue array. We discovered that the bulk of the IOR effect with multiple cues, in both the previous and present studies, can be explained by the distance between the target and the center of gravity of the cue array. The present results are consistent with the proposal advanced by Klein et al., (2005) suggesting that this IOR effect is due to population coding in the oculomotor pathways (e.g., the superior colliculus) driving the eye movement system toward the center of gravity of the cued array.

show abstract

“…Though it is fairly well established that orienting attention to the cue is a key mechanism in IOR (Klein, Christie, & Morris, 2005;Klein & MacInnes, 1999;Posner & Cohen, 1984;Yantis & Jonides, 1984) there is still some debate in the literature about the relative influence of perceptual contributions to this phenomenon. Zhao and Heinke (2014) suggest that attention and perception both play a role in IOR, but at different stages.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The scope of no return: Openness predicts the spatial distribution of Inhibition of Return

Wilson

Lowe

Ruppel

et al. 2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How and what we attend to is foundational in determining the content of our experience, thus differences in attention contribute significantly to how we perceive the world, learn, and develop. Personality also plays a role in constraining how we learn to perceive the world and it is conceivable that some facets of personality interact with visual attention; however, the relationship between these two constitutional aspects of psychology remains unclear. To address this interplay between cognition and personality, we looked at how the Big Five personality traits relate to the spatial scope of attention, as indexed by the spatial distribution of Inhibition of Return (IOR). IOR is marked by a decrement in reaction time when a target appears at a cued location, more than 200 ms after that cue. As the cue/target distance increases there is a release from inhibition, providing a measure of the spatial distribution of IOR and reflecting the spatial scope of attention. The results presented here show personality does predict the distribution of IOR. Specifically, higher trait Openness is associated with a broader distribution of IOR and attention. This finding suggests there is an intimate connection between personality, particularly Openness, and the spatial allocation of attention.

show abstract

Vector averaging of inhibition of return

Cited by 45 publications

References 22 publications

Reconceptualizing inhibition of return as

Reconceptualizing inhibition of return as

Inhibition of return is at the midpoint of simultaneous cues

The scope of no return: Openness predicts the spatial distribution of Inhibition of Return

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About