Does the inspector have a memory?

Klein, Raymond M.; Dukewich, Kristie R.

doi:10.1080/13506280500194022

Cited by 21 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the past decade, many researchers have assumed that IOR is a form of working memory (Birmingham & Pratt, 2005;Boot, McCarley, Kramer, & Peterson, 2004;Castel, Pratt, & Craik, 2003;Klein & Dukewich, 2006;Paul & Tipper, 2003;Shore & Klein, 2000). Evidence has emerged to both support and refute (Theeuwes, Van der Stigchel, & Olivers, 2006) the involvement of working memory in the expression of IOR; however, the intended connotation of the term working memory is unclear and probably varies depending on the context.…”

Section: Habituation Recoveredmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconceptualizing inhibition of return as

Dukewich

2009

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Habituation Recoveredmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconceptualizing inhibition of return as

Dukewich

2009

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…To function effectively as a foraging facilitator (Klein & Dukewich, 2006), IOR must be coded in spatiotopic rather than merely in retinotopic coordinates. Note that in using the term "spatiotopic," we are referring to a nonretinotopic, environmental reference frame.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Oculomotor inhibition of return: How soon is it “recoded” into spatiotopic coordinates?

Hilchey

Klein

Satel

et al. 2012

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When, in relation to the execution of an eye movement, does the recoding of visual information from retinotopic to spatiotopic coordinates happen? Two laboratories seeking to answer this question using oculomotor inhibition of return (IOR) have generated different answers: Mathôt and Theeuwes (Psychological Science 21:1793-1798, 2010) found evidence for the initial coding of IOR to be retinotopic, while Pertzov, Zohary, and Avidan (Journal of Neuroscience 30:8882-8887, 2010) found evidence for spatiotopic IOR at even shorter postsaccadic intervals than were tested by Mathôt and Theeuwes (Psychological Science 21:1793-1798, 2010). To resolve this discrepancy, we conducted two experiments that combined the methods of the previous two studies while testing as early as possible. We found early spatiotopic IOR in both experiments, suggesting that visual events, including prior fixations, are typically coded into an abstract, allocentric representation of space either before or during eye movements. This type of coding enables IOR to encourage orienting toward novelty and, consequently, to perform the role of a foraging facilitator.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, search error rates were higher than in Experiment 1. These findings suggest that the difficult search task with the fast dynamic display used in Experiment 2 was not as efficient as that with static displays in Experiment 1 (see also Klein & Dukewich, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…We believe that these reliances are seriously flawed. When an observer is making a two-choice decision (such as whether a target is present or absent in a display) and the experimenter is interested in understanding the efficiency of this decision, it is essential to consider both the speed and the accuracy (Pachella, 1974;Wickelgren, 1977) of all the decisions (Klein & Dukewich, 2006;Shore & Klein, 2000). For example, the level of evidence required for making a "present" response will simultaneously control the speed of responding on targetpresent trials, as well as the rate of erroneous (false alarm) responses on target-absent trials.…”

Section: Search Efficiency Of the Dynamic Search Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If it is generally the case that fast dynamic displays have a significant negative impact on search efficiency (cf. Klein & Dukewich, 2006), then the original argument made by Horowitz and Wolfe (1998)-that search in the static condition is amnestic-is undermined, because that argument depended on no loss of search efficiency when intratrial memory was useless. This does not mean, (p. 119).…”

Section: Dynamic Search and The "Amnesic" Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Inhibition of return in static but not necessarily in dynamic search

Wang

Zhang

Klein

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

76Inhibition of return (IOR) was first discovered by Posner and Cohen (1984; for a review, see Klein, 2000). Most scholars have explored IOR using the model task pioneered by Posner in which targets requiring simple responses are preceded by nonpredictive cues. Typically, at short cuetarget onset asynchrony (CTOA), response times (RTs) to targets appearing at a previously cued location are shorter than for targets appearing at an uncued location. However, at long CTOA, the pattern is reversed and RTs to targets presented at a cued location are longer than those to targets presented at an uncued location. In their seminal study, Posner and Cohen proposed that the function of IOR is to encourage orienting toward novel items.Visual search is a widely used paradigm in attention research. In a typical search task, participants are asked to search for a target among a group of distractors. The target may be present or absent in the array of items, and the participant makes a present/absent decision. When the search task is easy, the target "pops out" of the array, and RT is relatively unaffected by the number of items presented (set size). In contrast, when the search task is more difficult, RT increases, usually linearly, with the size of the array, and the slope of the RT set size function on target-absent trials is steeper than that on target-present trials. To avoid a theoretical commitment-and although recognizing that using two labels implies a dichotomy when a continuum of difficulty might provide a more accurate characterization-we will refer to these two types of search tasks as "easy" and "difficult," respectively. As for the prototypical pattern of results with difficult search tasks, two broad classes of theory have been advanced to explain the effect of set size on RT. One class of theory (e.g., Broadbent, 1987;Ratcliff, 1978;Townsend, 1974) asserts that information is processed or accumulated in "parallel" across all the items in the array, and a response is issued once enough evidence has been accumulated for either the "present" or "absent" decision. A second class of theory (Treisman & Gelade, 1980;Wolfe, 1994;Wolfe, Cave, & Franzel, 1989) asserts that individual items in the array or regions containing a small number of items are inspected serially by an attentional operator to determine whether the item is a target, or whether the region contains one. The linear relationship between RT and set size, and the finding that the slopes for target-absent trials are often approximately twice those of target-present trials, are straightforward consequences of this serial, selfterminating search strategy. (We will refer to these two classes of theory on how difficult search is accomplished as parallel and serial, respectively.) Although serial theories implicitly assume that, once rejected as distractors in difficult search tasks, items are not (or not likely to be) reinspected, originally no explicit mechanism was described that would prevent or discourage such reinspections (but see Koch & Ullman, 1985). ...

show abstract

Does the inspector have a memory?

Cited by 21 publications

References 44 publications

Reconceptualizing inhibition of return as

Reconceptualizing inhibition of return as

Oculomotor inhibition of return: How soon is it “recoded” into spatiotopic coordinates?

Inhibition of return in static but not necessarily in dynamic search

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About