Inhibition of return for faces

Self Cite

When words are onset in the visual periphery, inhibition of return (IOR) for a subsequent target is larger when those words receive an intervening forget instruction than when they receive a remember instruction Taylor (Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 613-629, 2005). The present study manipulated the allocation of endogenous and exogenous attention to assess the source of the forget > remember IOR difference. We determined that the forget > remember IOR difference likely arises from the differential withdrawal of exogenous-rather than endogenous-attention. Furthermore, this forget > remember IOR difference occurs only when a spatially compatible localization response is required; it does not occur when a simple detection response or a perceptual discrimination is required. This suggests that the forget > remember difference in the magnitude of IOR is not due to differences in perceptual/ attentional processing. Instead, an instruction to remember or forget biases spatial responses in accordance with whether a location has previously contained relevant or irrelevant information. We suggest that directed forgetting in an itemmethod paradigm is not accomplished by changes in attention; rather, the changes in attention are coincident with changes in memory and may serve to bias later responses away from a source of unreliable information.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Larger IOR effects following forget than following remember instructions depend on exogenous attentional withdrawal and target localization

Taylor

Fawcett

2011

Self Cite

“…Taylor and Therrien (2005) compared the magnitude of IOR (as expressed by manual motor responses) in response to neutral or scrambled face cues in a spatial cuing paradigm, but found no evidence that cue content influenced IOR. Stoyanova et al (2007) similarly found no difference in IOR magnitude in response to fearful, neutral, or scrambled face cues.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, IOR has emerged as a useful phenomenon to explore influence of peripheral cue content on exogenous control of covert attention (e.g., Fox, Russo, & Dutton, 2002;Stoyanova, Pratt, & Anderson, 2007;Taylor & Therrien, 2005;Theeuwes & Van der Stigchel, 2006). First discovered and investigated by Posner and Cohen (1984; see Klein, 2000, for a review), IOR refers to the finding that, after attention has been exogenously cued and then withdrawn from a location, attention is biased against returning to the region, indicated by inhibited processing of stimuli at (or near) the previously attended location relative to previously unattended locations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A short-lived face alert during inhibition of return

Weaver

Aronsen

Lauwereyns

2011

In the present study, we explored the role of faces in oculomotor inhibition of return (IOR) using a tightly controlled spatial cuing paradigm. We measured saccadic response latency to targets following peripheral cues that were either faces or objects of lesser sociobiological salience. A recurring influence from cue content was observed across numerous methodological variations. Faces versus other object cues briefly reduced saccade latencies toward subsequently presented targets, independently of attentional allocation and IOR. The results suggest a short-lived priming effect or social facilitation effect from the mere presence of a face. In the present study, we further showed that saccadic responses were unaffected by face versus nonface objects in double-cue presentations. Our findings indicate that peripheral face cues do not influence attentional orienting processes involved in IOR any differently from other objects in a tightly controlled oculomotor IOR paradigm.Keywords Eye movements and visual attention . Cognitive and attentional control . Inhibition of return . Face perception Attention allows for the selective processing of one source of information over other simultaneously available sources. Stolz (1996) demonstrated that the spatial orienting of exogenous visual attention can be influenced by content at peripheral locations. Using Posner's (1980) spatial cuing paradigm, the semantic relation of peripherally presented cue words to a context word was shown to influence the disengagement of attention. Subsequent research has also shown that emotional valence of cues can influence attentional disengagement (e.g

“…This would lead to a greater IOR response elicited by faces compared to other stimuli. Some of these studies have found an IOR effect for faces compared to other stimuli (Taylor & Therrien, 2008;Theeuwes & Van der Stigchel, 2006), while others have found no difference in IOR magnitude (Taylor & Therrien, 2005). However, it should be noted that these studies used a relatively narrow range of SOAs (e.g., 800-1,000 ms), so it is unknown what time course IOR may follow for face stimuli.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Sometimes, these studies use other control stimulus cues (e.g., household objects or scrambled faces) to compare the IOR response to faces (e.g., Taylor & Therrien, 2005;Taylor & Therrien, 2008;Theeuwes & Van der Stigchel, 2006;Weaver et al, 2012). In these paradigms, both types of stimuli should capture attention and lead to an IOR response.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eye gaze and head orientation modulate the inhibition of return for faces

Palanica

Itier

2015

The present study used an inhibition of return (IOR) spatial cueing paradigm to examine how gaze direction and head orientation modulate attention capture for human faces. Target response time (RT) was measured after the presentation of a peripheral cue, which was either a face (with front-facing or averted gaze, in either frontal head view or averted head view) or a house (control). Participants fixated on a centered cross at all times and responded via button press to a peripheral target after a variable stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) from the stimulus cue. At the shortest SOA (150 ms), RTs were shorter for faces than houses, independent of an IOR response, suggesting a cue-based RT advantage elicited by faces. At the longest SOA (2,400 ms), a larger IOR magnitude was found for faces compared to houses. Both the cue-based RT advantage and later IOR responses were modulated by gaze-head congruency; these effects were strongest for frontal gaze faces in frontal head view, and for averted gaze faces in averted head view. Importantly, participants were not given any specific information regarding the stimuli, nor were they told the true purpose of the study. These findings indicate that the congruent combination of head and gaze direction influence the exogenous attention capture of faces during inhibition of return.