This study investigated the active inhibition of precued distractor locations. In this study, the distractor location was precued by an arrow. Experiment 1 indicated that a valid precue could facilitate target localization. Experiment 2 demonstrated that when conflict trials were included, the distractor precue benefit was eliminated. Experiment 3 further showed that active inhibition required time to operate. The distractor precue benefit was observed only when the stimulus onset asynchrony between the precue and the target and distractor display was long. Experiment 4 illustrated that the benefit was not contingent on precuing the distractor response. Experiment 5 indicated that the benefit of distractor precuing was not due to the activation of target locations, and Experiment 6 showed that this benefit was due to attentional inhibition. Finally, Experiment 7 demonstrated that active inhibition of spatial location required an attentional resource to operate. These results indicated how a top-down mechanism exerted control on distractor locations.

The current study investigated attentional control through active inhibition of the identity of the distractor. Adapting a Stroop paradigm, the distractor word was presented in advance and made to disappear, followed by the presentation of a Stroop stimulus. Participants were instructed to inhibit the distractor in order to reduce its interference. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrated that the distractor precue facilitated Stroop color naming by reducing Stroop interference. Experiment 3 demonstrated beneficial effects of the distractor precue when congruent trials were introduced. Experiment 4 showed that the distractor precue benefit was observed when the cue and target were in different forms. Experiment 5 indicated that if the item used as the cue became the target, naming it took longer in order to overcome the inhibitory effect. Experiment 6 demonstrated that the benefit of the distractor precue was not observed when the cue was uninformative. Finally, Experiment 7 demonstrated that active inhibition required working-memory resources to operate. This study suggests that the best explanation for the distractor precue benefit is the active inhibition account.

Negative priming refers to delayed responses to previously ignored distractors. Unlike conventional studies of negative priming in which the attentional selection of a target against its distractors is required in prime trials (prime-selection negative priming), in single-prime negative priming, a prime stimulus is presented briefly. To further investigate the nature of single-prime negative priming, its properties were examined. In Experiment 1, the proportion of repetition was varied. The effect of single-prime negative priming was reduced when the proportion of repetition was high. In addition, Experiment 2 showed that high memory load could hamper the single-prime negative priming effect. Overall, the current study indicates controlled processing in single-prime negative priming and similarities between single-prime negative priming and prime-selection negative priming.

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slower responses to a target presented at a previously cued vs. uncued location. The present study investigated the role of memory retrieval in IOR by manipulating the contextual similarity between two successive targets in the target-target IOR paradigm. Successive targets were presented in either the same color (same-context condition) or different colors (different-context condition). Results of two experiments showed that IOR was greater in the same-context than the different-context condition. In addition, Experiment 2 showed that this context effect occurs with long response times (RTs), suggesting that memory retrieval, which requires time to manifest, plays an important role in IOR.