Literature DB >> 16604317

Inhibition of return in cue-target and target-target tasks.

Timothy N Welsh1, Jay Pratt.   

Abstract

Inhibition of return (IOR), the term given for the slowing of a response to a target that appeared at the same location as a previously presented stimulus, has been studied with both target-target (TT; participants respond to each successive event) and cue-target (CT; participants only respond to the second of two events) tasks. Although both tasks have been used to examine the processes and characteristics of IOR, few studies have been conducted to understand if there are any differences in the processes that underlie the IOR that results from ignoring (CT paradigm) or responding to (TT paradigm) the first stimulus. The purpose of the present study was to examine the notion that IOR found in TT tasks represents "true" IOR whereas IOR found in CT tasks consist of both "true" IOR and response inhibition (Coward et al. in Exp Brain Res 155:124-128, 2004). Consistent with the pattern of effects found by Coward et al. (Exp Brain Res 155:124-128, 2004), IOR was larger in the CT task than in the TT task when a single detection response was required (Experiment 1). However, when participants completed one of two spatially-directed responses (rapid aiming movement to the location of the target stimulus), IOR effects from the CT and TT tasks were equal in magnitude (Experiment 2). Rather than CT tasks having an additional response inhibition component, these results suggest that TT tasks may show less of an inhibitory effect because of a facilitatory response repetition effect.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16604317     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-006-0433-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  22 in total

1.  Inhibition of return is composed of attentional and oculomotor processes.

Authors:  A Kingstone; J Pratt
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1999-08

2.  Visual and motor effects in inhibition of return.

Authors:  T L Taylor; R M Klein
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  The effect of the physical characteristics of cues and targets on facilitation and inhibition.

Authors:  J Pratt; J Hillis; J M Gold
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2001-09

4.  Tactile inhibition of return: non-ocular response inhibition and mode of response.

Authors:  E Poliakoff; C Spence; D J O'Boyle; F P McGlone; F W J Cody
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2002-07-17       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Inhibition of return and manual pointing movements.

Authors:  Martin H Fischer; Jay Pratt; Sebastiaan F W Neggers
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2003-04

6.  The contribution of general and specific motor inhibitory sets to the so-called auditory inhibition of return.

Authors:  G Tassinari; D Campara; C Benedetti; G Berlucchi
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2002-09-05       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Inhibition of return: Dissociating attentional and oculomotor components.

Authors:  Amelia R Hunt; Alan Kingstone
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Inhibition of return: a graphical meta-analysis of its time course and an empirical test of its temporal and spatial properties.

Authors:  Arthur G Samuel; Donna Kat
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2003-12

9.  Does Joe influence Fred's action? Inhibition of return across different nervous systems.

Authors:  Timothy N Welsh; Digby Elliott; J Greg Anson; Victoria Dhillon; Daniel J Weeks; James L Lyons; Romeo Chua
Journal:  Neurosci Lett       Date:  2005-09-09       Impact factor: 3.046

10.  Orienting of attention and Parkinson's disease: tactile inhibition of return and response inhibition.

Authors:  Ellen Poliakoff; Donald J O'Boyle; A Peter Moore; Francis P McGlone; Frederick W J Cody; Charles Spence
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2003-07-22       Impact factor: 13.501

View more
  8 in total

1.  Evidence for an attentional component in saccadic inhibition of return.

Authors:  David Souto; Dirk Kerzel
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-05-08       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Location-response binding and inhibition of return in a detection task.

Authors:  Hsuan-Fu Chao; Fei-Shan Hsiao
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-04-05       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 3.  Visual attention and action: How cueing, direct mapping, and social interactions drive orienting.

Authors:  Mark A Atkinson; Andrew A Simpson; Geoff G Cole
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-10

4.  On the nature of the delayed "inhibitory" cueing effects generated by uninformative arrows at fixation.

Authors:  Matthew D Hilchey; Jason Satel; Jason Ivanoff; Raymond M Klein
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2013-06

5.  Response-specific effects in a joint action task: social inhibition of return effects do not emerge when observed and executed actions are different.

Authors:  Joseph Manzone; Geoff G Cole; Paul A Skarratt; Timothy N Welsh
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2016-08-16

6.  Response switching in schizophrenia patients and healthy subjects: effects of the inter-response interval.

Authors:  Cosima Franke; Benedikt Reuter; Anja Breddin; Norbert Kathmann
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-06-07       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Visual cognition during real social interaction.

Authors:  Paul A Skarratt; Geoff G Cole; Gustav Kuhn
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2012-06-29       Impact factor: 3.169

8.  "Two Minds Don't Blink Alike": The Attentional Blink Does Not Occur in a Joint Context.

Authors:  Merryn D Constable; Jay Pratt; Timothy N Welsh
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-09-12
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.