Abstract

Two explanations for inhibition of return (IOR) have been proposed. The first is that IOR reflects inhibition of attentional processing at previously cued locations, resulting in altered sensory analysis. The second is that IOR reflects the inhibition of responses directed towards those previously cued locations. We used a variant of a double-saccade paradigm to dissociate these two proposed effects of IOR and attempted to reveal both effects within the context of a single experimental task. Subjects viewed a series of exogenous cues and then made a localization response to subsequent targets with either a target-directed saccade or a pointing response. Results were similar for both response modes. An important finding was that the pattern of IOR depended critically on how subjects reacted to the exogenous cues. Subjects either oriented to the cued locations (via saccades or pointing) prior to responding to the target (Respond), or passively viewed the cues before responding (Ignore). In the Respond condition, IOR was observed at the most recently cued position. Although this could be consistent with an altered sensory interpretation, it would also be consistent with a spatiotopic representation. In the Ignore condition, the sole inhibited location was not the most recently cued position, but the first cued position. This finding is surprising and in conflict with previous work with multiple exogenous cues. The data are discussed in relation to a number of prominent issues in the area of IOR and suggest important new constraints and boundary conditions.

Highlights

  • When an exogenous cue is flashed in the visual field, there are two well-documented phenomena that follow

  • Separate analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the responding to the target (Respond) and Ignore conditions served as the basis for planned contrasts evaluating the inhibition of return (IOR) effects, with the Mean Square Error terms from these separate analyses used as the error term for the planned contrasts

  • Two brain areas thought to act as interfaces between sensory and motor processing are the posterior parietal cortex and the superior colliculus (SC); and the debate over the relative importance of sensory and motor influences on activity in these brain areas is long standing and well documented[29,74,75]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

When an exogenous cue is flashed in the visual field, there are two well-documented phenomena that follow. Within approximately 50–150 msec of cue appearance, responses to visual targets that appear in the cued location are facilitated. This effect has been documented for a variety of different responses including detection, localization, and discrimination of nonspatial features[1,2,3,4,5,6], and has been observed for both manual and saccadic responses[2,3,6]. The facilitation effect is followed at longer cuetarget intervals (stimulus onset asynchronies, or SOAs) of 200 msec or more by an opposite inhibitory effect known as inhibition of return, or IOR. IOR has been reported for a variety of different classification responses and response modes[5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15].

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call