Abstract
The view persists that the inhibition of return (IOR) and the spatial negative priming (SNP) phenomena may be produced by a common “orientation inhibition” mechanism (e.g., Christie & Klein, 2001), held to arise during the processing of peripherally delivered (parafoveal) visual events. Both IOR and SNP effects are present when responding to recently to-be-ignored distractor events is delayed. Since an SNP effect has been produced using centrally located distracters (visual angle of about 2.5? or less), a common mechanism view would require that these locations generate orientation inhibition, which then cause of the SNP effect. We report past results and an experiment that reject the common mechanism view. Subjects completed four tasks; two, 1-response tasks, using either central (Task 1) or peripheral (Task 2: IOR) event locations, and two, 4-response tasks, again, using central (Task 3: SNP-central) or peripheral (Task 4: SNP-peripheral) locations. Trials occurred in pairs; first the prime (a target or a distractor), then the probe (target only). Critically, neither distractor- nor target-occupied prime locations produced either inhibitory (SNP effect) or positive after-effects, respectively, in Task 1. Seemingly, centrally located events do not generate orientation inhibition and so, unlike the IOR effect, this inhibition does not cause the SNP-central phenomenon.
Highlights
Inhibitory after-effects are a consequence of an earlier act of inhibition that interferes with later related processing (Tassinari, Aglioti, Chelazzi, Marzi, & Berlucchi, 1987)
The spatial negative priming effect (SNP; Tipper, Weaver, Cameron, Brehaut, & Bastedo, 1991) and the inhibition of return phenomenon (IOR; Posner, Rafal, Choate, Vaughn, & Cohen, 1985) are exemplars of such inhibitory after-effects that arise as a result of location processing; location being salient in SNP but not in IOR tasks
We examine how inhibition associated with distractor processing, which creates inhibitory after-effects, likely arises in SNP and IOR tasks
Summary
Inhibitory after-effects are a consequence of an earlier act of inhibition that interferes with later related processing (Tassinari, Aglioti, Chelazzi, Marzi, & Berlucchi, 1987). The spatial negative priming effect (SNP; Tipper, Weaver, Cameron, Brehaut, & Bastedo, 1991) and the inhibition of return phenomenon (IOR; Posner, Rafal, Choate, Vaughn, & Cohen, 1985) are exemplars of such inhibitory after-effects that arise as a result of location processing; location being salient in SNP but not in IOR tasks. Debate is ongoing as to whether the SNP and IOR after-effects result from distinct (e.g., Fitzgeorge & Buckolz, 2008) or similar (e.g., Christie & Klein, 2001; Milliken, Tipper, Houghton, & Lupianez, 2000) underlying processing. Resolving the distinct exemplars uncertainty does have some importance It should reduce confusion among studies rendering apparently discordant results because one has incorrectly assumed IOR and SNP to be either the same or different phenomena (e.g., see Chao, 2009). It is essential that we understand what processing is being challenged by each of these tasks in order to avoid misdiagnoses
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
