Literature DB >> 23361390

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

Matthew D Hilchey1, Jason Satel, Jason Ivanoff, Raymond M Klein.   

Abstract

When the interval between a spatially uninformative arrow and a visual target is short (<500 ms), response times (RTs) are fastest when the arrow points to the target. When this interval exceeds 500 ms, there is a near-universal absence of an effect of the arrow on RTs. Contrary to this expected pattern of results, Taylor and Klein (J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26:1639-1656, 2000) observed that RTs were slowest when a to-be-localized visual target occurred in the direction of a fixated arrow presented 1 s earlier (i.e., an "inhibitory" Cueing effect; ICE). Here we examined which factor(s) may have allowed the arrow to generate an ICE. Our experiments indicated that the ICE was a side effect of subthreshold response activation attributable to a task-induced association between the arrow and a keypress response. Because the cause of this ICE was more closely related to subthreshold keypress activation than to oculomotor activation, we considered that the effect might be more similar to the negative compatibility effect (NCE) than to inhibition of return (IOR). This similarity raises the possibility that classical IOR, when caused by a spatially uninformative peripheral onset event and measured by a keypress response to a subsequent onset, might represent, in part, another instance of an NCE. Serendipitously, we discovered that context (i.e., whether an uninformative peripheral onset could occur at the time of an uninformative central arrow) ultimately determined whether the "inhibitory" aftermath of automatic response activation would affect output or input pathways.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23361390     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0376-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  32 in total

1.  Unmasking the inhibition of return phenomenon.

Authors:  S Danziger; A Kingstone
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1999-08

2.  Motor activation with and without inhibition: evidence for a threshold mechanism in motor control.

Authors:  Friederike Schlaghecken; Martin Eimer
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2002-01

3.  The presence of a nonresponding effector increases inhibition of return.

Authors:  J Ivanoff; R M Klein
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2001-06

4.  Focal spatial attention can eliminate inhibition of return.

Authors:  Zhiguo Wang; Raymond M Klein
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2012-06

5.  What the experimenter's prime tells the observer's brain.

Authors:  Geoff G Cole; Gustav Kuhn
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Correlates of capture of attention and inhibition of return across stages of visual processing.

Authors:  Jillian H Fecteau; Douglas P Munoz
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 3.225

7.  Inhibition of return and repetition priming effects in localization and discrimination tasks.

Authors:  Tracy L Taylor; Jason Ivanoff
Journal:  Can J Exp Psychol       Date:  2005-06

8.  How important is a prime's gestalt for subliminal priming?

Authors:  Piotr Jaśkowski; Maciej Slósarek
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2006-08-17

9.  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

10.  Conditional and unconditional automaticity: a dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence.

Authors:  R De Jong; C C Liang; E Lauber
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 3.332

View more
  3 in total

1.  Spatial gradients of oculomotor inhibition of return in deaf and normal adults.

Authors:  Srikant Jayaraman; Raymond M Klein; Matthew D Hilchey; Gouri Shanker Patil; Ramesh Kumar Mishra
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-10-16       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  The Effect of Cigarette Packaging and Illness Sensitivity on Attention to Graphic Health Warnings: A Controlled Study.

Authors:  Agnes Hardardottir; Mohammed Al-Hamdani; Raymond Klein; Austin Hurst; Sherry H Stewart
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2020-10-08       Impact factor: 4.244

3.  In search of a reliable electrophysiological marker of oculomotor inhibition of return.

Authors:  Jason Satel; Matthew D Hilchey; Zhiguo Wang; Caroline S Reiss; Raymond M Klein
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2014-06-27       Impact factor: 4.016

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.