Literature DB >> 18327623

Disentangling perceptual and motor components in inhibition of return.

Bin Zhou1.   

Abstract

Following an abrupt onset of a peripheral stimulus (a cue), the response to a visual target is faster when the target appears at the cued position than when it appears at other positions. However, if the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) is longer than approximately 300 ms, the response to the target is slower at the cued position than that at other positions. This phenomenon of a longer response time to cued targets is called "inhibition of return" (IOR). Previous hypotheses propose contributions of both response inhibition and attentional inhibition at cued position to IOR, and suggest that responding to the cue can eliminate the component of response inhibition. The current study uses tasks either executing or withholding response to the cue to investigate the relative contributions of response and attention components to IOR. A condition with bilateral display of the cue is also chosen as a control condition, and eight different SOAs between 1,000 and 2,750 ms are tested. Compared to the control condition, response delay to the target at a cued position is eliminated by responding to the cue, and a response advantage to the target at an uncued position is not affected by responding to the cue. Furthermore, both response delay at a cued position and response advantage at an uncued position decrease with SOA in the time window tested in these experiments. The results reported here indicate a dominant response inhibition at a cued position and a primary attentional allocation at an uncued position for IOR. Nonsignificant perceptual/attentional suppression at a cued position is argued to be a benefit for visual detection in a changing world.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18327623     DOI: 10.1007/s10339-008-0207-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Process        ISSN: 1612-4782


  55 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.  Inhibition of return in discrimination tasks.

Authors:  J Pratt; R A Abrams
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Inhibition of return in temporal order saccades.

Authors:  Chiang-shan Ray Li; Shih-chieh Lin
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  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

Review 5.  Distracted and confused?: selective attention under load.

Authors:  Nilli Lavie
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 20.229

Review 6.  Visual attention as a multilevel selection process.

Authors:  Sabine Kastner; Mark A Pinsk
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.282

7.  Auditory and audiovisual inhibition of return.

Authors:  C Spence; J Driver
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1998-01

8.  Distribution in the visual field of the costs of voluntarily allocated attention and of the inhibitory after-effects of covert orienting.

Authors:  G Tassinari; S Aglioti; L Chelazzi; C A Marzi; G Berlucchi
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 3.139

9.  Effects of target luminance and cue validity on the latency of visual detection.

Authors:  H L Hawkins; M G Shafto; K Richardson
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1988-11

10.  Timing and competition in networks representing ambiguous figures.

Authors:  C Gómez; E D Argandoña; R G Solier; J C Angulo; M Vázquez
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 2.310

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Pre-semantically defined temporal windows for cognitive processing.

Authors:  Ernst Pöppel
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2009-07-12       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  Attentional bias toward cigarette cues in active smokers.

Authors:  Vicki W Chanon; Chandler R Sours; Charlotte A Boettiger
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2010-07-29       Impact factor: 4.530

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.