Inhibition-of-return at multiple locations in visual space.

Wright, Richard D.; Richard, Christian

doi:10.1037/1196-1961.50.3.324

Cited by 40 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the role ofthe number ofpossible target locations on inhibition of return has not been examined in depth. Wright and Richard (1993) found equal magnitudes of inhibition while varying the number of simultaneously cued locations, but the present results suggest that the number of potential target locations may have a significant impact on the magnitude of the inhibitory effect.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 47%

Examining the effect of practice on inhibition of return in static displays

Pratt

McAuliffe

1999

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a recent article, Weaver, Lupiafiez, and Watson (1998) reported that both object-based and location-based inhibition of return effects were reduced with practice. The present study was conducted to (1) replicate the reduction of inhibition of return with practice in single-session experiments with a variety of displays and responses and (2) to examine the notion that the reduction was, at least partly,due to habituation. However,no evidence for practice-related changes in the size of the inhibitory effect were found over a series of different inhibition of return experiments using static displays (using various numbers of target locations, types of keypress responses, and number of trials). Overall, the results suggest that inhibition of return is a robust phenomenon and may not, with static displays, be especially sensitive to practice effects.

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 47%

Examining the effect of practice on inhibition of return in static displays

Pratt

McAuliffe

1999

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, in studies in which an empty environmental locus is cued and attention is not oriented to a cued object, the size ofthe effect is quite small. For example, in Wright and Richards's (1996) procedure, in which the spatial locations were not marked by visible peripheral boxes, only 15 msec of lOR was observed in the procedure most similar to that reported here. This compares with the more typical 40-to 50-msec effect observed when peripheral boxes act as place holders (see, e.g., Posner & Cohen, 1984).…”

supporting

confidence: 63%

Object-based inhibition of return in static displays

Jordan

Tipper

1998

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After attention has been oriented to a location, inhibition mechanisms prevent the return of attention shortly afterward. This inhibition can be associated with an object in such a way that after cuing attention to the object, inhibition can move with the object to a new location. Recent research has noted that the object-based inhibition of return effect in moving displays is much smaller than the effect observed in static displays, and hence may be of little functional utility. However, we demonstrate that, on the contrary, the large effects observed in static displays are produced precisely because of the existence of object-based frames, which can be additive with location-based frames of reference.Many visual environments are highly complex, and hence attention systems have evolved to select particular perceptual inputs to guide action. One of the main problems to be solved when organisms interact with complex environments is how objects relevant to behavior are found. Therefore, efficient mechanisms of visual search are crucial. One ofthe main features ofan efficient search system is that it be able to move to novel locations until a relevant object is discovered. That is, attention must not repeatedly return to recently examined loci since target stimuli may never be found. The importance of this point can easily be appreciated when considering an animal foraging for food.Posner and Cohen (1984) discovered a mechanism that would facilitate such efficient search. They showed that after attention had been automatically oriented to a spatial location via a peripheral onset cue, processing of stimuli at the cued location was impaired. They argued that this impairment reflected an inhibitory mechanism preventing the return of attention to the previously attended location. Posner and Cohen called this mechanism inhibition ofreturn (lOR) and said that its function was to facilitate search of novel loci.lOR has now been observed in a wide range of tasks. It is obtained when subjects detect the onset of targets with either keypress or saccades (see, e.g., Abrams & Dobkin, 1994), when they identify colors (see, e.g., Lupiafiez, Milan, Tornay, Madrid, & Tudela, 1997), letters (Lupiafiez, Milliken, Solano, Weaver, & Tipper, 1998), or auditory frequency (Mondor, Breau, & Milliken, 1998); and in cross-modal studies, in which the cue is presented in the visual modality and the target is presented in the auditory modality (Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996). Of most pertinence to the aims of this article, the frames of reference that mediate lOR have also been investigated.It has been demonstrated (e.g., Maylor, 1985;Posner & Cohen, 1984) that lOR is based on environmental rather than retinal coordinates. Thus, when eye movements were This research has been supported by BBSRC Grant S06761 to S.P.T. Correspondence should be addressed to S. P.Tipper, School of Psychology, University of Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales LL57 2DG (e-mail: pss060@bangor.ac.uk).made between the cue offset and target onset, inhibition was as...

show abstract

“…Abrams and Pratt (1996) noted, however, that the subjects in the Tipper et a1. (1996) study might have grouped each of the cued locations into one contiguous region of inhibited space (see also Wright & Richard, 1996). Consistent with this idea, Abrams and Pratt (1996) showed that when three locations were cued in a manner that could preclude spatially contiguous grouping, lOR resided at only the most recently cued location.…”

supporting

confidence: 50%

Inhibition of return and visual search: How many separate loci are inhibited?

Snyder

Kingstone

2000

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a novel sequential visual search paradigm Danziger, Kingstone, and Snyder (1998) demonstrated that inhibition ofretum (lOR) can reside at three spatial locations. In the present study, we extended the work of Danziger et al. by investigating whether there is a limit to the number of locations that can be inhibited in a sequential visual search task. Our study revealed that lOR can be measured at a minimum of five locations. The magnitude of the IOR effect was largest at the most recently searched location and declined from there in an approximately linear fashion. Two models that can account for our data are presented.

show abstract

Inhibition-of-return at multiple locations in visual space.

Cited by 40 publications

References 24 publications

Examining the effect of practice on inhibition of return in static displays

Examining the effect of practice on inhibition of return in static displays

Object-based inhibition of return in static displays

Inhibition of return and visual search: How many separate loci are inhibited?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About