Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to an increase in reaction times to targets that appeared at a previously cued location relative to an uncued location, often investigated using a spatial cueing paradigm. Despite numerous studies that have examined many aspects of IOR, the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying IOR are still in dispute. The objective of the current research is to investigate the plausible mechanisms by manipulating the cue and target types between central and peripheral stimuli in a traditional cue-target paradigm with saccadic responses to targets. In peripheral-cueing conditions, we observed inhibitory cueing effects across all cue-target onset asynchronies (CTOAs) with peripheral targets, but IOR was smaller and arose later with central targets. No inhibition was observed in central-cueing conditions at any CTOAs. Empirical data were simulated using a two-dimensional dynamic neural field model. Our results and simulations support previous work demonstrating that, at short CTOAs, behavioral inhibition is only observed with repeated stimulation-an effect of sensory adaptation. With longer CTOAs, IOR is observed regardless of target type when peripheral cueing is used. Our findings suggest that behaviorally exhibited inhibitory cueing effects can be attributed to multiple mechanisms, including both attenuation of visual stimulation and local inhibition in the superior colliculus.

There are thought to be two forms of inhibition of return (IOR) depending on whether the oculomotor system is activated or suppressed. When saccades are allowed, output-based IOR is generated, whereas input-based IOR arises when saccades are prohibited. In a series of 4 experiments, we mixed or blocked compatible and incompatible trials with saccadic or manual responses to investigate whether cueing effects would follow the same pattern as those observed with more traditional peripheral onsets and central arrows. In all experiments, an uninformative cue was displayed, followed by a cue-back stimulus that was either red or green, indicating whether a compatible or incompatible response was required. The results showed that IOR was indeed observed for compatible responses in all tasks, whereas IOR was eliminated for incompatible trials-but only with saccadic responses. These findings indicate that the dissociation between input- and output-based forms of IOR depends on more than just oculomotor activation, providing further support for the existence of an inhibitory cueing effect that is distinct to the manual response modality.

Inhibition of return is characterized by delayed responses to previously attended locations when the cue-target onset asynchrony (CTOA) is long enough. However, when cues are predictive of a target’s location, faster reaction times to cued as compared to uncued targets are normally observed. In this series of experiments investigating saccadic reaction times, we manipulated the cue predictability to 25% (counterpredictive), 50% (nonpredictive), and 75% (predictive) to investigate the interaction between predictive endogenous facilitatory (FCEs) and inhibitory cueing effects (ICEs). Overall, larger ICEs were seen in the counterpredictive condition than in the nonpredictive condition, and no ICE was found in the predictive condition. Based on the hypothesized additivity of FCEs and ICEs, we reasoned that the null ICEs observed in the predictive condition are the result of two opposing mechanisms balancing each other out, and the large ICEs observed with counterpredictive cueing can be attributed to the combination of endogenous facilitation at uncued locations with inhibition at cued locations. Our findings suggest that the endogenous activity contributed by cue predictability can reduce the overall inhibition observed when the mechanisms occur at the same location, or enhance behavioral inhibition when the mechanisms occur at opposite locations.

No abstract

No abstract