Inhibition of return for objects and locations in static displays

Inhibition of object identity in inhibition of return: Implications for encoding and retrieving inhibitory processes

“…However, this result could also reveal that inhibition was originally applied to the location of the object and that movement of the object may have updated inhibition of a spatial representation. Similarly, other studies have found greater IOR when an object rather than an empty location was cued (e.g., Jordan & Tipper, 1998;Leek, Reppa, & Tipper, 2003; and shown that this effect lasted longer as well (Grison, Tipper, & Kramer, 2005;Paul & Tipper, 2003). In these cases, however, it is possible that objects only provided stable landmarks that marked the location of spatial inhibition and helped maintain it for greater lengths of time.…”

Successes and failures in producing attentional object-based cueing effects

“…First, in moving object displays, IOR for the cued object is significant despite having moved from the cued location (e.g., Ro & Rafal, 1999;Tipper et al, 1991;Tipper et al, 1999;Tipper et al, 1994). Second, in static object displays, IOR is larger for targets in object-present than in objectabsent displays (e.g., Jordan & Tipper, 1998;Klein, 1988;Leek et al, 2003;Possin et al, 2009;Takeda & Yagi, 2000). Third, IOR is modulated by the organisation and salience of object contours in the display (e.g., Leek et al, 2003;.…”

“…Nevertheless, the necessary-albeit not wholly sufficient-prerequisite for the observation of objectbased effects is the presence of physical or apparent contours (typically closed regions) in the visual display. Displays used to date have included outline and opaque rectangles and squares (e.g., Brown & Denney, 2007;Christ et al, 2002;Egly et al, 1994;Iani, Nicoletti, Rubichi, & Umiltà, 2001;List & Robertson, 2007;McAuliffe et al, 2001;Müller & von Mühlenen, 1996;Shomstein & Behrmann 2008;Theeuwes, Mathôt, & Kingstone, 2010;Vecera, 1994), hockey-stick-like figures (e.g., Haimson & Behrmann, 2001), overlapping objects (e.g., Behrmann, Zemel, & Mozer, 1998;Brawn & Snowden, 2000;Lavie & Driver, 1996;Law & Abrams, 2002;Moore et al, 1998), apparent rectangles and squares (e.g., Han, Wan, Wang, & Humphreys, 2005;Moore et al, 1998), thick lines (Robertson & Kim, 1999), open parallel lines (e.g., Avrahami, 1999;Marino & Scholl, 2005), outline ribbons (e.g., Avrahami, 1999), outline L-shapes (e.g., Leek, Reppa, & Tipper, 2003;Possin, Filoteo, Song, & Salmon, 2009;, groups of dots forming rectangles (e.g., Marrara & Moore, 2003), and outlines of 3-D objects (e.g., Bourke, Partridge, & Pollux, 2006;Gibson & Egeth, 1994). Some of the above object displays are shown in Tables 2, 3 and 4. If selection processes are mediated by representations of objects, the observation of object-based effects might reasonably be influenced by stimulus factors giving strong clues to object structure.…”

Object Orientation Affects Spatial Language Comprehension

“…The spatial prepositions could be one of the following: above/below, on the left/on the right, or in front of/behind. We used four polyoriented objects (a pumpkin, a strawberry, a carrot, and a pepper) as the LOs and ROs for spatial descriptions that contained the terms above/below to avoid increasing the participant reaction time (RT) needed to mentally rotate objects into canonical orientations (Leek, 1998;Leek, Reppa, & Tipper, 2003). Unlike monooriented objects, polyoriented objects do not show RT differences as a function of increasing their rotations away from a canonical orientation.…”