Evidence for an attentional component of inhibition of return in visual search

Abstract

Inhibition of return (IOR) is typically described as an inhibitory bias against returning attention to a recently attended location as a means of promoting efficient visual search. Most studies examining IOR, however, either do not use visual search paradigms or do not effectively isolate attentional processes, making it difficult to conclusively link IOR to a bias in attention. Here, we recorded ERPs during a simple visual search task designed to isolate the attentional component of IOR to examine whether an inhibitory bias of attention is observed and, if so, how it influences visual search behavior. Across successive visual search displays, we found evidence of both a broad, hemisphere-wide inhibitory bias of attention along with a focal, target location-specific facilitation. When the target appeared in the same visual hemifield in successive searches, responses were slower and the N2pc component was reduced, reflecting a bias of attention away from the previously attended side of space. When the target occurred at the same location in successive searches, responses were facilitated and the P1 component was enhanced, likely reflecting spatial priming of the target. These two effects are combined in the response times, leading to a reduction in the IOR effect for repeated target locations. Using ERPs, however, these two opposing effects can be isolated in time, demonstrating that the inhibitory biasing of attention still occurs even when response-time slowing is ameliorated by spatial priming.

Testing the role of response repetition in spatial priming in visual search

“…However, the results also make clear spatial positive priming effects can be separated from response repetition. The data are thus broadly consistent with multiprocess theories of spatial priming (e.g., Christie & Klein, 2001;Hilchey, Rajsic et al, 2018;Krummenacher & Mueller, 2012;Milliken et al, 2000;Pierce et al, 2017;Pratt & Abrams, 1999;Lamy, Yashar, & Ruderman, 2010), none of which are complete. Whatever the eventual case, it is at this point clear that the nature and limits on the observed spatial priming effects are determined predominantly by the sensorimotor demands and contexts of the task (Memelink & Hommel, 2013;Rangelov, Müller, & Zehetleitner, 2012), with strong links between target location and responding developing at unique levels of representation, specifically in tasks demanding target identity processing prior to response formation.…”

“…Based on the extant data, we believe that the responseindependent spatial positive priming effect relates more closely to the ease with which information can be extracted from a region or the ease by which the response rules can be determined to perform the task (Hillstrom, 2000;Tanaka & Shimojo, 2000;, either of which can occur independent of orienting bias (Hilchey, Rajsic et al, 2018;Pierce, Crouse, & Green, 2017;Posner & Petersen, 1990). In addition to these effects, target location repetition effects can be highly dependent on key-press response repetition in tasks requiring target identity processing, and this contribution from response repetition may intensify with a greater number of location and response possibilities (Hilchey et al, 2017b;Hyman, 1953).…”

Electrophysiological Correlates of the Effect of Task Difficulty on Inhibition of Return

“…The significant cueing effect in the P3 amplitude observed in the current study is also compatible with traditional attention theories and a more recent segregation-integration theory of IOR (Lupiáñez and Milliken, 1999; Lupiáñez et al, 2007, 2013; Funes et al, 2008). The theories of visual attention suggest that IOR originates in a lack of attention at the cued location (Klein and Dick, 2002; McDonald et al, 2009; Pierce et al, 2017). Thus, the target stimuli at the cued location are expected to have a weaker representation and thus evoked a smaller P3 (Kok, 1997).…”

What Neuroscientific Studies Tell Us about Inhibition of Return

“…In the first such study, McDonald et al [47] discovered that the N2pc component was reduced, but not delayed for targets presented at the cued location. Using a visual search paradigm, Pierce et al [48] obtained converging evidence for this finding. As yet, we are not aware of any studies with eye movements that have investigated the association of N2pc modulations with IOR.…”

“…Other studies, e.g., [47,48] have explored the possibility of IOR modulating the amplitude or latency of the N2pc component, which arises in a similar time range as the Nd component and is assumed to reflect a shift of attention. In the first such study, McDonald et al [47] discovered that the N2pc component was reduced, but not delayed for targets presented at the cued location.…”