scholarly journals Probability manipulations can modulate but not reverse reflective inhibition-of-return effects

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zachary Jay Cole ◽  
Evan Nathaniel Lintz ◽  
Matthew Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Significant Role ◽  
Inhibition Of Return ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Inhibitory Influence ◽  
Directed Attention ◽  
Attentional Processes ◽  
Perceptual Attention ◽  
Paradoxical Effects ◽  
Target Locations

Inhibition of return (IOR) is a phenomenon of perceptual attention characterized by delayed shifts in attention toward previously cued target locations. In reflective (internally directed) attention studies, response times (RTs) to cued items are sometimes facilitated, but other times IOR-like effects are observed wherein RTs to probed items are slower when the items had been mentally attended (refreshed) earlier in the trial. Perceptual IOR is known to be modulated by the probability that target and cued locations match. If the same is true for reflective attention, it could account for why sometimes reflective attention can lead to facilitation and other times inhibition. In the current study, four experiments examined the potential facilitative or inhibitory influence of probe predictability in reflective attention. We first replicated the design and IOR like pattern of results originally reported by Johnson et al. (2013). In subsequent experiments, when the proportion of unrefreshed probes was increased, the IOR-like effect increased in magnitude. When the proportion of refreshed probes was increased, the IOR-like effect was eliminated, but there was no evidence for facilitation. Altogether, these results are consistent with perceptual IOR literature implicating underlying inhibitory and facilitative attentional processes that can either interact synergistically or nullify each other. Further work will be needed to fully understand the paradoxical effects of why reflective attention is sometimes inhibitory and other times facilitative, but the current results demonstrate that expectation can play a significant role in the size of the effect.

scholarly journals Covert Reorienting and Inhibition of Return: An Event-Related fMRI Study

2002 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jöran Lepsien ◽  
Stefan Pollmann
Keyword(s):  
Inhibition Of Return ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Stimulus Onset ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Functional Neuroanatomy ◽  
Attentional Processes ◽  
Supplementary Eye Field ◽  
Fmri Study ◽  
Eye Field ◽  
The Right

Using event-related fMRI, we analyzed the functional neuroanatomy of covert reorienting and inhibition of return (IOR). Covert reorienting to a target appearing within 250 msec after an invalid contralateral location cue elicited increased activation in the left fronto-polar cortex (LFPC), right anterior and left posterior middle frontal gyrus, and right cerebellum, areas that have previously been associated with attentional processes, specifically attentional change. In contrast, IOR, which leads to prolonged response times to targets that appear at the cued location at a stimulus-onset-asynchrony (SOA)>250 msec, was accompanied by increased activation in brain areas involved in oculomotor programming, such as the right medial frontal gyrus (supplementary eye field; SEF) and the right inferior precentral sulcus (frontal eye field; FEF), supporting the oculomotor bias theory of IOR. Pre-SEF and pre-FEF areas were involved both in covert reorienting and IOR. The supramarginal gyri were bilaterally involved in IOR, with the right supramarginal gyrus additionally involved in covert reorienting.

scholarly journals Eye Fixation-Related Potentials during Visual Search on Acquaintance and Newly-Learned Faces

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 218
Author(s):  
Seungji Lee ◽  
Doyoung Lee ◽  
Hyunjae Gil ◽  
Ian Oakley ◽  
Yang Seok Cho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emotional Responses ◽  
Gaze Behavior ◽  
Directed Attention ◽  
Attentional Processes ◽  
Eye Fixation ◽  
P300 Component ◽  
Successful Search ◽  
Late Positive Potentials ◽  
Related Potentials ◽  
Face Task

Searching familiar faces in the crowd may involve stimulus-driven attention by emotional significance, together with goal-directed attention due to task-relevant needs. The present study investigated the effect of familiarity on attentional processes by exploring eye fixation-related potentials (EFRPs) and eye gazes when humans searched for, among other distracting faces, either an acquaintance’s face or a newly-learned face. Task performance and gaze behavior were indistinguishable for identifying either faces. However, from the EFRP analysis, after a P300 component for successful search of target faces, we found greater deflections of right parietal late positive potentials in response to newly-learned faces than acquaintance’s faces, indicating more involvement of goal-directed attention in processing newly-learned faces. In addition, we found greater occipital negativity elicited by acquaintance’s faces, reflecting emotional responses to significant stimuli. These results may suggest that finding a familiar face in the crowd would involve lower goal-directed attention and elicit more emotional responses.

A Direct Assessment of the Role of Expectation in Inhibition of Return

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (9) ◽  
pp. 783-787 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Spalek
Keyword(s):  
Inhibition Of Return ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Direct Measure ◽  
Imaginary Circle ◽  
Direct Assessment ◽  
Relevant Evidence ◽  
Indirect Measures

An object hidden among distractors can be found more efficiently if previously searched locations are not reinspected. The inhibition-of-return (IOR) phenomenon indexes the tendency to avoid reinspections. Two accounts of IOR, that it is due to inhibition and that it is due to expectation, are generally regarded as incompatible. The relevant evidence to date, however, has been indirect: Inhibition or expectation has been inferred from response times or similar indirect measures. This article reports the first direct measure of IOR, obtained by asking observers to predict the location of the next target in a display containing eight possible locations on an imaginary circle. On any given trial, the previously cued location was chosen less frequently (impairment)—and the opposite location was chosen more frequently (facilitation)—than chance (choice of all other locations was at chance). The impairment is consistent with both inhibition and expectation accounts; the facilitation is consistent only with expectation accounts. This work also shows that inhibition and expectation are not necessarily incompatible: Implementing expectations may entail inhibiting previously cued locations.

Independent effects of endogenous and exogenous spatial cueing: inhibition of return at endogenously attended target locations

2004 ◽  
Vol 159 (4) ◽  
pp. 447-457 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Lupi��ez ◽  
Caroline Decaix ◽  
Eric Si�roff ◽  
Sylvie Chokron ◽  
Bruce Milliken ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inhibition Of Return ◽  
Spatial Cueing ◽  
Independent Effects ◽  
Target Locations

scholarly journals Learning what is irrelevant or relevant: Expectations facilitate distractor inhibition and target facilitation through distinct neural mechanisms

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk van Moorselaar ◽  
Heleen A. Slagter
Keyword(s):  
Target Location ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Distractor Location ◽  
Distractor Inhibition ◽  
Distractor Processing ◽  
Behavioral Studies ◽  
Outstanding Question ◽  
Target Locations ◽  
The Brain

AbstractIt is well known that attention can facilitate performance by top-down biasing processing of task-relevant information in advance. Recent findings from behavioral studies suggest that distractor inhibition is not under similar direct control, but strongly dependent on expectations derived from previous experience. Yet, how expectations about distracting information influence distractor inhibition at the neural level remains unclear. The current study addressed this outstanding question in three experiments in which search displays with repeating distractor or target locations across trials allowed observers to learn which location to selectively suppress or boost. Behavioral findings demonstrated that both distractor and target location learning resulted in more efficient search, as indexed by faster response times. Crucially, benefits of distractor learning were observed without target location foreknowledge, unaffected by the number of possible target locations, and could not be explained by priming alone. To determine how distractor location expectations facilitated performance, we applied a spatial encoding model to EEG data to reconstruct activity in neural populations tuned to the distractor or target location. Target location learning increased neural tuning to the target location in advance, indicative of preparatory biasing. This sensitivity increased after target presentation. By contrast, distractor expectations did not change preparatory spatial tuning. Instead, distractor expectations reduced distractor-specific processing, as reflected in the disappearance of the Pd ERP component, a neural marker of distractor inhibition, and decreased decoding accuracy. These findings suggest that the brain may no longer process expected distractors as distractors, once it has learned they can safely be ignored.Significance statementWe constantly try hard to ignore conspicuous events that distract us from our current goals. Surprisingly, and in contrast to dominant attention theories, ignoring distracting, but irrelevant events does not seem to be as flexible as is focusing our attention on those same aspects. Instead, distractor suppression appears to strongly rely on learned, context-dependent expectations. Here, we investigated how learning about upcoming distractors changes distractor processing and directly contrasted the underlying neural dynamics to target learning. We show that while target learning enhanced anticipatory sensory tuning, distractor learning only modulated reactive suppressive processing. These results suggest that expected distractors may no longer be considered distractors by the brain once it has learned that they can safely be ignored.

scholarly journals Fronto-parietal organization for response times in inhibition of return: The FORTIOR model

Cortex ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 102 ◽  
pp. 176-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tal Seidel Malkinson ◽  
Paolo Bartolomeo
Keyword(s):  
Inhibition Of Return ◽  
Response Times

scholarly journals Evidence Accumulation Modelling Reveals that Gaussian Noise Accounts for Inhibition of Return

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tal Seidel Malkinson ◽  
Alexia Bourgeois ◽  
Nicolas Wattiez ◽  
Pierre Pouget ◽  
Paolo Bartolomeo
Keyword(s):  
Gaussian Noise ◽  
Inhibition Of Return ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Information Criterion ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Noise Parameter ◽  
Evidence Accumulation ◽  
Cortical Regions ◽  
Different Response ◽  
The Right

AbstractInhibition of return (IOR) refers to the slowing of response times (RTs) for stimuli repeated at previously inspected locations, as compared with novel ones. However, the exact processing stage(s) at which IOR occurs, and its nature across different response modalities, remain debated. We tested predictions on these issues originating from the FORTIOR model (fronto-parietal organization of response times in IOR; Seidel Malkinson & Bartolomeo, 2018), and from evidence accumulation models. We reanalysed RT data from a target-target IOR paradigm (Bourgeois et al.,2013a, 2013b) by using a LATER-like evidence accumulation model (Carpenter & Williams, 1995), to test the predictions of FORTIOR, and specifically whether IOR could occur at sensory/attentional stages of processing, or at stages of decision and action selection. We considered the following conditions: manual or saccadic response modality, before or after TMS perturbation over four cortical regions. Results showed that the Gaussian noise parameter best explained both manual and saccadic IOR, suggesting that in both response modalities IOR may result from slower accumulation of evidence for repeated locations. Additionally, across stimulated regions, TMS affected only manual RTs, lowering them equally in the conditions with repeated targets (Return) and non-repeated targets (Non-return). Accordingly, the modelling results show that TMS stimulation did not significantly alter the pattern between model parameters, with the Gaussian noise parameter remaining the parameter best explaining the Return - Non-return RT difference. Moreover, TMS over the right intra-parietal sulcus (IPS) perturbed IOR by shortening the Return RT. When directly testing this effect by modelling the TMS impact in the Return condition, the Bayesian information criterion of the Gaussian noise parameter was the smallest, but this effect did not reach significance. These results support the hypothesis that target-target IOR is a predominantly sensory/attentional phenomenon, and may be modulated by activity in fronto-parietal networks.

scholarly journals Nice Guys Check Twice

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zachary L Howard ◽  
Paul Michael Garrett ◽  
Daniel R. Little ◽  
James T. Townsend ◽  
Ami Eidels
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Data ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Detection Task ◽  
Processing Capacity ◽  
The Past ◽  
Capacity Coefficient ◽  
Processing Resources ◽  
Detection Of Signals ◽  
Target Locations ◽  
And Task

Systems Factorial Technology (SFT) is a popular framework for that has been used to investigate processing capacity across many psychological domains over the past 25+ years. To date, it had been assumed that no processing resources are used for sources in which no signal has been presented (i.e., in a location that can contain a signal but does not on a given trial). Hence, response times are purely driven by the ``signal-containing'' location or locations. This assumption is critical to the underlying mathematics of the capacity coefficient measure of SFT. In this manuscript, we show that stimulus locations influence response times even when they contain no signal, and that this influence has repercussions for the interpretation of processing capacity under the SFT framework, particularly in conjunctive (AND) tasks - where positive responses require detection of signals in multiple locations. We propose a modification to the AND task requiring participants to fully identify both target locations on all trials. This modification allows a new coefficient to be derived. We apply the new coefficient to novel experimental data and resolve a previously reported empirical paradox, where observed capacity was limited in an OR detection task but super capacity in an AND detection task. Hence, previously reported differences in processing capacity between OR and AND task designs are likely to have been spurious.

The Effects of the Fixation Cue in Inhibition of Return

2013 ◽  
pp. 109-118
Author(s):  
Yujie Li ◽  
Chunlin Li ◽  
Jinglong Wu
Keyword(s):  
Stimulus Onset Asynchrony ◽  
Inhibition Of Return ◽  
Stimulus Onset ◽  
Central Fixation Point ◽  
Object A ◽  
Potential Target ◽  
Attentional Effect ◽  
Onset Asynchrony ◽  
Target Locations ◽  
Central Fixation

In experiments examining inhibition of return (IOR), an attentional effect that inhibits the returning of attention to a previously attended location or object, a second cue during the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) period is typically used. This is done to control the reorienting of attention from a peripherally cued location back to the central fixation point before the target appears. Recently, there have been numerous studies which demonstrate that fixation cues are effective in revealing IOR. Plenty of factors have been shown to influence the effects of the fixation cue in IOR, including the time onset of the fixation cue, the number of potential target locations, the attentional demands of performing the task, the modality of the fixation cue, and the condition of participants. Here, the authors review previous work that has examined the effects of the fixation cue in IOR.

scholarly journals Fronto-parietal Organization for Response Times in Inhibition of Return: The FORTIOR Model

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tal Seidel Malkinson ◽  
Paolo Bartolomeo
Keyword(s):  
Left Hemisphere ◽  
Inhibition Of Return ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Functional Organization ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Response Threshold ◽  
Manual Response ◽  
Temporoparietal Junction ◽  
The Right

Inhibition of Return (IOR) refers to a slowing of response times (RTs) for visual stimuli repeated at the same spatial location, as compared to stimuli occurring at novel locations. The functional mechanisms and the neural bases of this phenomenon remain debated. Here we present FORTIOR, a model of the cortical control of visual IOR in the human brain. The model is based on known facts about the anatomical and functional organization of fronto-parietal attention networks, and accounts for a broad range of behavioral findings in healthy participants and brain-damaged patients. FORTIOR does that by combining four principles of asymmetry: a) Asymmetry in the networks topography, whereby the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (vlPFC) nodes are lateralized to the right hemisphere, causing higher activation levels in the right intraparietal sulcus (IPS) and frontal eye field (FEF) nodes. b) Asymmetry in inter-hemispheric connectivity, in which inter-hemispheric connections from left hemisphere IPS to right hemisphere IPS and from left hemisphere FEF to right hemisphere FEF are weaker than in the opposite direction. c) Asymmetry of visual inputs, stipulating that the FEF receives direct visual input coming from the ipsilateral visual cortex, while the right TPJ and vlPFC and IPS nodes receive input from both the contralateral and the ipsilateral visual fields. d) Asymmetry in the response modality, with a higher response threshold for the manual response system than that required to trigger a saccadic response. This asymmetry results in saccadic IOR being more robust to interference than manual IOR. FORTIOR accounts for spatial asymmetries in the occurrence of IOR after brain damage and after non-invasive transcranial magnetic stimulation on parietal and frontal regions. It also provides a framework to understand dissociations between manual and saccadic IOR, and makes testable predictions for future experiments to assess its validity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document