Influences of abrupt vs. ramped stimulus presentation on location-based inhibition of return

Magnocellular and Parvocellular Pathway Influences on Location-Based Inhibition-Of-Return

“…Some studies have compared IOR when targets have appeared in objects versus appearing at the same locations in the same display but without objects (Jordan and Tipper 1998;McAuliffe et al 2001;Wright and Richard 1996), others compared IOR when objects were in the display versus when they were not (Brown 2009;Guenther 2008;Jordan and Tipper 1998;Leek et al 2003;McAuliffe et al 2001), and others have compared IOR to targets appearing at a new location within a cued object versus in a nearby object that was not cued (Jordan and Tipper 1999;Leek et al 2003;List and Robertson 2007). For example, Jordan and Tipper (1998) tested static displays containing illusory squares.…”

“…Berlucchi (2006) recently noted that Posner and Cohen (1984) emphasized the importance of sensory influences of the cue on the target in their original report of RT inhibition to cued locations at long SOAs. Additional support for this approach of studying the interaction of attention and sensory-perceptual variables affecting M and P activity comes from IOR, a study by Guenther (2008) who used more traditional cues and targets (ie not Gabor patches).…”

“…In separate experiments, Guenther's (2008) 0.4 deg square cues and 0.6 deg square targets appeared 2.1 deg from fixation in different contexts, either alone (no objects) or within the boundaries of 2-D objects (often referred to as placeholders in the IOR literature) or 3-D objects (similar to those used here). Cue duration was 600 ms and the cue-to-target SOA was 800 ms. Cues and targets were presented abruptly, as in most IOR studies, or their luminance was ramped up to and down from the maximum luminance.…”