Evidence for an attentional component in saccadic inhibition of return

Souto, David; Kerzel, Dirk

doi:10.1007/s00221-009-1824-3

Cited by 17 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 58 publications

(94 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most interestingly, at these SOAs the target luminance changed the size of the IOR effect by the same amount, with a larger IOR effect for the dim than for the bright target (at SOAs 500 and 800 ms; for more analyses and discussions see the comparison between Experiments 2a and 2b). This result replicates ReuterLorenz, Jha, and Rosenquist (1996), Hunt and Kingstone (2003) and Souto and Kerzel (2009). Therefore our results present further evidence that the mixed target luminance affects a perceptual stage.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…When data were pooled across Experiment 2a and 2b, bright targets produced a smaller IOR than dim targets, replicating the results of ReuterLorenz, Jha, and Rosenquist (1996) and Hunt and Kingstone (2003) and Souto and Kerzel (2009). Most importantly, when the cue luminance was blocked bright cues produced a larger IOR-effect relative to dim cues (between Experiment 2a and 2b), supporting the perceptual account of IOR.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

“…The experiments also demonstrated an influence of target luminance on the size of IOR in the mixed condition replicating results by ReuterLorenz, Jha, and Rosenquist's (1996), Hunt and Kingstone's (2003), and Souto and Kerzel (2009). To explain these findings we can draw on the process model of the Pieron's law introduced in the introduction (see e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…There are several studies varying the target luminance in a mixed condition (e.g. ReuterLorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996;Hunt & Kingstone, 2003;Souto & Kerzel, 2009). They reported that dim targets in a mixed condition produced larger IOR-effects than bright targets.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 3 more Smart Citations

What causes IOR? Attention or perception? – Manipulating cue and target luminance in either blocked or mixed condition

Zhao

Heinke

2014

Vision Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the performance disadvantage when detecting a target presented at a previously cued location. The current paper contributes to the long-standing debate whether IOR is caused by attentional processing or perceptual processing. We present a series of four experiments which varied the cue luminance in mixed and blocked conditions. We hypothesised that if inhibition was initialized by an attentional process the size of IOR should not vary in the blocked condition as participants should be able to adapt to the level of cue luminance. However, if a perceptual process triggers inhibition both experimental manipulations should lead to varying levels of IOR. Indeed, we found evidence for the latter hypothesis. In addition, we also varied the target luminance in blocked and mixed condition. Both manipulations, cue luminance and target luminance, affected IOR in an additive fashion suggesting that the two stimuli affect human behaviour on different processing stages.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What causes IOR? Attention or perception? – Manipulating cue and target luminance in either blocked or mixed condition

Zhao

Heinke

2014

Vision Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, Fagioli, Hommel, and Schubotz (2007) confirmed priming of action-related features: Processing of shape was favoured with grasping responses while location information was privileged with reaching responses. Modulations of cognitive processes by the response type were also shown in other paradigms, such as precueing tasks (e.g., Adam et al, 2008) and inhibition of return tasks with saccadic responses (e.g., Souto & Kerzel, 2009). Thus, to understand the human ability to select and control actions, it is necessary to consider the specific mechanisms underlying each response type.…”

Section: Related Findingsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Effects of Saccades and Response Type on the Simon Effect: If you Look at the Stimulus, the Simon Effect May be Gone

Buetti

Kerzel

2010

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Simon effect has most often been investigated with key-press responses and eye fixation. In the present study, we asked how the type of eye movement and the type of manual response affect response selection in a Simon task. We investigated three eye movement instructions (spontaneous, saccade, and fixation) while participants performed goal-directed (i.e., reaching) or symbolic (i.e., finger-lift) responses. Initially, no oculomotor constraints were imposed, and a Simon effect was present for both response types. Next, eye movements were constrained. Participants had to either make a saccade toward the stimulus or maintain gaze fixed in the screen centre. While a congruency effect was always observed in reaching responses, it disappeared in finger-lift responses. We suggest that the redirection of saccades from the stimulus to the correct response location in noncorresponding trials contributes to the Simon effect. Because of eye-hand coupling, this occurred in a mandatory manner with reaching responses but not with finger-lift responses. Thus, the Simon effect with key-presses disappears when participants do what they typically do--look at the stimulus.

show abstract

Influence of removal of invisible fixation on the saccadic and manual gap effect

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Saccadic and manual reactions to a peripherally presented target are facilitated by removing a central fixation stimulus shortly before a target onset (the gap effect). The present study examined the effects of removal of a visible and invisible fixation point on the saccadic gap effect and the manual gap effect. Participants were required to fixate a central fixation point and respond to a peripherally presented target as quickly and accurately as possible by making a saccade (Experiment 1) or pressing a corresponding key (Experiment 2). The fixation point was dichoptically presented, and visibility was manipulated by using binocular rivalry and continuous flash suppression technique. In both saccade and key-press tasks, removing the visible fixation strongly quickened the responses. Furthermore, the invisible fixation, which remained on the display but suppressed, significantly delayed the saccadic response. Contrarily, the invisible fixation had no effect on the manual task. These results indicate that partially different processes mediate the saccadic gap effect and the manual gap effect. In particular, unconscious processes might modulate an oculomotor-specific component of the saccadic gap effect, presumably via subcortical mechanisms.

show abstract

Evidence for an attentional component in saccadic inhibition of return

Cited by 17 publications

References 58 publications

What causes IOR? Attention or perception? – Manipulating cue and target luminance in either blocked or mixed condition

What causes IOR? Attention or perception? – Manipulating cue and target luminance in either blocked or mixed condition

Effects of Saccades and Response Type on the Simon Effect: If you Look at the Stimulus, the Simon Effect May be Gone

Influence of removal of invisible fixation on the saccadic and manual gap effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About