Location-based Inhibition Of Return Research Articles

Aging and Inhibition of Return to Locations and Objects.

Inhibition of return (IOR) is thought to reflect a cognitive mechanism that biases attention from returning to previously engaged items. While models of cognitive aging have proposed deficits within select inhibitory domains, older adults have demonstrated preserved IOR functioning in previous studies. The present study investigated whether inhibition associated with objects shows the same age patterns as inhibition associated with locations. Young adults (18–22 years) and older adults (60–86 years) were tested in two experiments measuring location- and object-based IOR. Using a dynamic paradigm (Experiment 1), both age groups produced significant location-based IOR, but only young adults produced significant object-based IOR, consistent with previous findings. However, with a static paradigm (Experiment 2), young adults and older adults produced both location- and object-based IOR, indicating that object-based IOR is preserved in older adults under some conditions. The findings provide partial support for unique age-related inhibitory patterns associated with attention to objects and locations.

Priming of Attentional Selection in Macaque Visual Cortex: Feature-Based Facilitation and Location-Based Inhibition of Return.

Visual search performance varies with stimulus and response history. Priming of pop-out refers to increased accuracy and reduced response time with repeated presentation of particular singleton and distractor features (e.g., a red target among green distractor stimuli), which are abruptly impaired when singleton and distractor features swap (e.g., green target among red distractors). Meanwhile, inhibition of return refers to the slowing of response time when target location repeats. Neurophysiological correlates of both these phenomena have been reported in the frontal eye field (FEF), an area in the frontal lobe contributing to attentional selection and eye movement planning. To understand the mechanistic origin of these adaptive behaviors, we investigated visual cortical area V4, an area providing input to and receiving feedback from FEF, during feature-based priming of pop-out and location-based inhibition of return. Performing a color pop-out task, monkeys exhibited pronounced priming of pop-out and inhibition of return. Neural spiking from V4 revealed earlier target selection associated with priming of pop-out and delayed selection associated with inhibition of return. These results demonstrate substantial involvement of extrastriate visual cortex in behavioral priming and inhibition of return.

Interaction between spatial inhibition of return (IOR) and executive control in three-dimensional space

It has been well documented how spatial inhibition of return (IOR) interacts with executive functions in a two-dimensional plane, i.e., significantly decreased interference at the cued (inhibited) compared to the uncued location. It remains unknown, however, how spatial IOR interacts with executive functions along the depth dimension of the real 3D world. Here, we adapted the Posner spatial-cuing paradigm into a virtual 3D world. The location-based IOR was orthogonally combined with the flanker effect: The target and its flanker could appear at either the cued or the uncued location in a closer or farther depth plane. Moreover, the flanker effect was differentiated into the pre-response and response levels, and the flankers could appear in the either same (Experiment 1) or different (Experiment 2) depth plane from the target. A simple detection task was also adopted to test the pure effect of how visuospatial attention is prevented from returning previously attended location along the depth dimension. The results showed that there existed significant IOR effects only when target was presented in the farther depth plane. Moreover, significantly reversed response-level conflicts were observed at the cued location in the farther depth plane, indicating that spatial IOR toward the farther depth plane was more than a simple effect of attentional orienting. Rather, the inhibitory tagging mechanism may take place. In addition, orienting to the close depth plane resulted in either a facilitatory or null effect. Accordingly, only the pre-response-level conflict was modulated by attentional orienting to the closer depth plane.

Location-based Inhibition of Return along Depth Plane in Three-dimensional Space

Location-based Inhibition of Return along Depth Plane in Three-dimensional Space

Multiple cueing dissociates location- and feature-based repetition effects.

There is an extensive literature on the phenomenon of inhibition of return (IOR): When attention is drawn to a peripheral location and then removed, response time is delayed if a target appears in the previously inspected location. Recent research suggests that non-spatial attribute repetition (i.e., if a target shares a feature like color with the earlier, cueing, stimulus) can have a similar inhibitory effect, at least when the target appears in the previously cued location. What remains unknown is whether location- and feature-based inhibitory effects can be dissociated. In the present study, we used a multiple cueing approach to investigate the properties of location- and feature-based repetition effects. In two experiments (detection, and discrimination), location-based IOR was absent but feature-based inhibition was consistently observed. Thus, the present results indicate that feature- and location-based inhibitory effects are dissociable. The results also provide support for the view that the attentional consequences of multiple cues reflect the overall center of gravity of the cues. We suggest that the repetition costs associated with feature and location repetition may be best understood as a consequence of the pattern of activation for object files associated with the stimuli present in the displays.

A sex difference in location-based inhibition-of-return

The hunter–gatherer theory of spatial sex differences provides an organizing framework for why men (i.e., hunters) are generally superior on spatial tasks related to orienting in space (e.g., map reading, throwing accuracy) while women (i.e., gatherers) are superior on spatial tasks related to objects and their locations. Location-based inhibition-of-return (IOR) has been thought to facilitate foraging by orienting attention towards novel locations compared to recently inspected ones. From the evolutionary perspective of the hunter–gatherer theory, if IOR facilitates successful foraging then women might be expected to exhibit greater location-based IOR than men. Two experiments tested this hypothesis by measuring location-based IOR using 1cpd and 12cpd Gabor targets appearing either left/right (Exp. 1) or above/below (Exp. 2) fixation. Both experiments found evidence of greater IOR for women than men and greater IOR to the higher compared to the lower spatial frequency target. The results are discussed in terms of the hunter–gatherer theory, location- and object-based attention, and recent evidence of magnocellular and parvocellular influences on location-based IOR (Brown & Guenther, 2012).

Exploring the effect of stimulus characteristics on location-based inhibition of return using abrupt and ramped stimulus presentation

A recent study illustrating the importance of sensory influences on inhibition of return (IOR) found stimuli biased towards the parvocellular (P) pathway produced greater IOR while stimuli biased towards the magnocellular (M) pathway produced less IOR (Brown, 2009; Guenther & Brown, 2007). The present study used a different sensory manipulation (temporal onset/offset) to further explore this relationship. Greater M activity was expected when stimuli were presented abruptly (M-biased) compared to when stimuli were ramped on and off (P-biased). Consistent with our recent findings, greater location-based IOR was found under ramped vs. abrupt conditions. The results showed location-based IOR is influenced by the nature of stimulus presentation (ramped vs. abrupt) providing convergent evidence of an IOR mechanism sensitive to M- and P-biased stimuli.

Magnocellular and Parvocellular Pathway Influences on Location-Based Inhibition-Of-Return

The roles of the parvocellular (P) and magnocellular (M) retino-geniculo-cortical pathways during shifts of visual attention were investigated by creating M/dorsal-biased (eg low spatial frequency target, no objects present) and P/ventral-biased (ie high spatial frequency target, the perception of 3-D objects) stimulus conditions and measuring location-based inhibition-of-return (IOR). P/ventral-biased conditions produced the greatest IOR. M/dorsal-biased conditions produced the least IOR, in one instance eliminating it altogether. The results indicate a close relationship between IOR magnitude and relative P/ventral and M/dorsal activity with location-based IOR related more to P/ventral than to M/dorsal activity.

Ramped Target Presentation Increases the Magnitude of Location-Based Inhibition of Return

Ramped Target Presentation Increases the Magnitude of Location-Based Inhibition of Return

Emotional and hemispheric asymmetries in shifts of attention: An ERP study

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the larger response time to cued targets appearing at long cue-to-target intervals. Given emotion–attention interactions and associated visual field (VF) asymmetries, we examined the effects of emotions and hemispheric processing on object- and location-based IOR. We expected reduced IOR and right hemispheric bias accompanied by differences in event-related potentials (ERPs) including lack of suppression of cued N1 and enhancement of Nd components for sad targets. Reaction times and ERPs were recorded in an exogenous cuing detection task using happy and sad schematic faces. Results revealed reduced IOR for left compared to right VF with sad faces but no such asymmetry for happy faces. Cued N1 amplitudes were suppressed for happy targets but not for sad targets presented to the left VF. Nd amplitudes were enhanced for right-hemispheric sad faces especially with object-based IOR. The results indicate right-hemispheric advantage in the capture of attention by negative emotion especially with object-based selection.

The Modulation of Intentional Control on Automatic Inhibition in Cognitive Aging

Cognitive aging is an unavoidable phenomenon for human beings. Various theories have been proposed to clarify the mechanism underlying cognitive aging, such as Processing Speed Theory (Salthouse, 1985, 1996), Decline in Inhibition Theory (Hasher Zacks, 1988) and Working Memory Theory (Swanson, 1999), which attribute the age-related decline of cognitive ability to descended processing speed, reduced efficiency of inhibitory control and decreased working memory capacity, respectively. Additionally, Executive Decline Hypothesis, which was proposed recently (Li Chen, 2006), argues that the age-related decline of executive functioning is the main reason of cognitive aging. Meanwhile, previous research with young adults as participants has demonstrated that, although location-based inhibition of return (IOR) remains unaffected in cognitive aging and is regarded as a type of automatic inhibitory ability, it can be modulated by top-down intentional cognitive control. Nevertheless, whether this modulation is affected in cognitive aging remains an open question. Therefore, the present research aims to investigate this question by combining the proportion control method and the location-based IOR paradigm with both young and old adults as participants. A detection task was adopted for this purpose. In this task, a target (a white spot) appeared in either the left or the right white square on a gray background on a computer screen and participants were asked to detect the stimulus as quickly as possible by pressing the space bar. Each time before the target was shown, one of the two squares flashed up, which was defined as a cue indicating the location of the coming target. The whole experiment was divided into two sessions, in which the validity proportion of the location cue was 50% and 80% respectively. Participants were informed of the validity proportion before each session. Sixteen old adults (mean age = 64.4 years old) and sixteen college students (mean age = 22.4 years old) were recruited for the experiment. Analysis of variance on reaction time showed that when the validity proportion was set at 50%, both young and older adults showed typical location-based IOR effects and no significant difference in the effect size was found between the two groups (older adults: IOR = 20.7ms vs. young adults: IOR = 16.2ms); however, when the proportion of valid cue was increased to 80%, IOR effects declined by different extents in the two groups. A reversed IOR effect (IOR = ?31.8ms) was found in young adults while the IOR effect disappeared in old adults (IOR = 3.1ms, p 0.1). When the proportion of valid cue was set to a baseline level (50%), participants were unable to predict the target location effectively. Thus, the identical effect size of IOR in the two groups implies that the location-based IOR as an automatic inhibition remains unaffected in cognitive aging. However, when the proportion of valid cue was increased to 80%, participants were more likely to attend to the cued location, suggesting a top-down cognitive control on attention. Thus, the declined IOR effect demonstrates that the automatic inhibition of return is modulated by intentional control. This finding is also consistent with that of previous research (e.g. Zhang Chen, 2002b, 2004). More importantly, the amount of modulation in the old adults is significantly smaller than that of the young adults, indicating that the modulation of intentional control on automatic inhibition diminished during cognitive aging, which supports the Executive Decline Hypothesis (Raz, 2000; West, 1996).

Eliminating inhibition of return by changing salient nonspatial attributes in a complex environment.

Inhibition of return (IOR) occurs when a target is preceded by an irrelevant stimulus (cue) at the same location: Target detection is slowed, relative to uncued locations. In the present study, we used relatively complex displays to examine the effect of repetition of nonspatial attributes. For both color and shape, attribute repetition produced a robust inhibitory effect that followed a time course similar to that for location-based IOR. However, the effect only occurred when the target shared both the feature (i.e., color or shape) and location with the cue; this constraint implicates a primary role for location. The data are consistent with the idea that the system integrates consecutive stimuli into a single object file when attributes repeat, hindering detection of the second stimulus. The results are also consistent with an interpretation of IOR as a form of habituation, with greater habituation occurring with increasing featural overlap of a repeated stimulus. Critically, both of these interpretations bring the IOR effect within more general approaches to attention and perception, rather than requiring a specialized process with a limited function. In this view, there is no process specifically designed to inhibit return, suggesting that IOR may be the wrong framing of inhibitory repetition effects. Instead, we suggest that repetition of stimulus properties can interfere with the ability to focus attention on the aspects of a complex display that are needed to detect the occurrence of the target stimulus; this is a failure of activation, not an inhibition of processing.

Exploring the causes of object effects on location-based inhibition of return when using spatial frequency specific cues and targets

Exploring the causes of object effects on location-based inhibition of return when using spatial frequency specific cues and targets

Exploring parvocellular and magnocellular pathway contributions to location-based inhibition of return

Exploring parvocellular and magnocellular pathway contributions to location-based inhibition of return

Hierarchical organization influences on object- and location-based inhibition of return

Hierarchical organization influences on object- and location-based inhibition of return

Influences of abrupt vs. ramped stimulus presentation on location-based inhibition of return

Influences of abrupt vs. ramped stimulus presentation on location-based inhibition of return

Object- and location-based inhibition of return to superimposed surfaces

Object- and location-based inhibition of return to superimposed surfaces

Comment on Cohen et al: Neural Basis of the Set-Size Effect in Frontal Eye Field: Timing of Attention During Visual Search

to the editor: Distinguishing targets from distractors is crucial for goal-directed behavior and areas related to visual attention—including the lateral intraparietal area (LIP) and the frontal eye field (FEF)—have robust target-selective neural responses. The onset of significant target-

Reply to Balan and Gottlieb

REPLY: Several important questions are raised in the recent comparison by Balan and Gottlieb (2009) between the description by Balan et al. (2008) of lateral intraparietal (LIP) neuron activity in monkeys performing visual search with manual responses and our recent report of frontal eye field (FEF) neuron activity in monkeys performing visual search with saccade responses (Cohen et al. 2009). Both studies manipulated the number of distractors in the search display. Balan et al. 2008 reported decreased firing rate with increasing set size, but they reported no delay in the time at which activity for the target exceeded activity for the distractors, referred to as target selection time. Cohen and colleagues (2009) also reported decreased firing rate with increasing set size, but also observed delayed target selection time with increasing set size. How should we interpret the different observations across laboratories, effectors, cortical areas, and task designs? First, we emphasize that this is not a case of one observation being correct and the other incorrect. The results of both studies are valid within their respective contexts. However, the question remains: which difference between studies explains the different outcomes? We argue that task demands are the major factors. In other words, measured under the same task demands, we predict that the same pattern of results would be obtained across effector (manual response vs. saccade) and cortical area (LIP vs. FEF). The first step of the argument is to appreciate that categorical statements about the relationship between target selection time and response time are not possible because these times vary for at least three reasons. First, neuron type matters. Multiple

Neural correlates of spatial and non-spatial inhibition of return (IOR) in attentional orienting

Exogenous orienting of attention typically produces an early facilitatory effect and a later inhibitory effect, i.e., inhibition of return (IOR). IOR occurs not only in spatial but also in non-spatial domains. Although neural mechanisms associated with spatial IOR have been well established, neural correlates underlying non-spatial IOR remain to be elucidated. In this fMRI study, we compared neural correlates of spatial and non-spatial IOR by adopting a 2 (cue type: location vs. color) × 2 (stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA: long vs. short) × 2 (cue validity: cued vs. uncued) factorial design. Behaviorally, spatial cueing induced the typical biphasic (i.e., the early facilitatory and later inhibitory) effects, while color cueing induced inhibitory effects at both short and long SOAs. Neurally, we found both shared and specific neural correlates of spatial and non-spatial IOR. As compared with short SOA (cued and uncued trials combined), spatial and color cueing at long SOA conjointly activated bilateral precentral gyrus and bilateral lateral occipital cortex, while spatial cueing, but not color cueing, specifically activated bilateral superior parietal cortex. Moreover, left middle frontal gyrus and left inferior frontal gyrus showed significantly higher neural activity in cued trials than in uncued trials during color-based IOR, but not during location-based IOR, implying that episodic retrieval process in the prefrontal cortex may be involved to inhibit old object representations during non-spatial IOR [Grison, S., Paul, M. A., Kessler, K., & Tipper, S. P. (2005). Inhibition of object identity in inhibition of return: Implications for encoding and retrieving inhibitory processes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 553–558; Tipper, S. P., Grison, S., & Kessler, K. (2003). Long-term inhibition of return of attention. Psychological Science, 14, 19–25]. Theoretical implications of the shared and differential neural activity associated with spatial and non-spatial IOR are discussed.