Abstract
Inhibition of return is the name typically given to the prolonged latency of motor responses directed to a previously cued target location. There is intense debate about the origins of this effect and its function, but most take for granted (despite lack of evidence) that it depends little on forward masking. Therefore, we re-examined the role of forward masking in inhibition of return. Forward masking was indexed by slower saccadic reaction times (SRTs) when the target orientation repeated the cue orientation at the same location. We confirmed effects of orientation repetition in the absence of an attentional bias when cues were presented on both sides of fixation (bilateral presentation). The effect of orientation repetition was reduced with high target contrast, consistent with a low-level origin such as contrast gain control in early visual areas. When presenting cues on only one side of fixation (unilateral presentation), we obtained inhibition of return with longer cue-target intervals and facilitation with targets presented shortly after the cue. The effect of orientation repetition was reduced when facilitation was observed, but was as strong as with bilateral cues when inhibition of return was observed. Therefore, forward masking may contribute to the inhibition of return effect by delaying reaction times to repeated features at the same location, but is not a principal cause of inhibition of return; in agreement with previous views.Significance statementThe saccadic inhibition of return effect is a reaction-time cost when responding to a pre-cued location. Additional object updating costs are typically invoked to explain reaction-time costs observed when cue and target have the same shape. Yet, lower-level, forward masking of the target by the cue can not be ruled out. Importantly, we show an effect of orientation repetition that is consistent with low-level forward masking rather than object updating costs and that does not interact with inhibition of return.
Highlights
Our ability to react to a stimulus, such as a red light at a pedestrian crossing, depends on previous stimulation
Reaction times were about 60 ms longer with the 100-ms stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) compared to other SOAs
We found a main effect of SOA, F(3,75) = 57.77, p < .001, η2p = .70, consistent with an overall reduction in saccadic reaction times (SRTs) from the shortest to the longer SOAs (259, 198, 213, 209 ms)
Summary
Our ability to react to a stimulus, such as a red light at a pedestrian crossing, depends on previous stimulation. Under some conditions responses show a biphasic profile: cues presented shortly before the target (50–250 ms) facilitate reaction times to targets at the cued location, whereas cues presented long before the target (often >300 ms) delay reaction times (for reviews see Chica, Martín-Arévalo, Botta, & Lupiáñez, 2014; Klein, 2000). The latter delay has been called inhibition of return, Atten Percept Psychophys (2018) 80:1182–1192 alluding to the idea that reorienting to the cued peripheral location is inhibited in favor of uncued locations (Posner & Cohen, 1984). We examine the contribution of forward pattern masking to the IOR effect observed in a peripheral cueing paradigm
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
