Inhibition of Return Impairs Phosphene Detection

Smith, Daniel T.; Ball, Keira; Ellison, Amanda

doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00276

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(50 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The facilitation of SRTs observed in the reward paradigm also failed to transfer to the IOR task In studies of perceptual IOR the impaired perception at cued locations occurs because the sensory processing of visual signals arising from the cued location is suppressed ( Muller and Kleinschmidt, 2007 ; Dukewich, 2009 ; Prime and Jolicoeur, 2009 ; Smith and Schenk, 2010 ; Smith et al, 2012a ; Sapir et al, 2014 ). The mechanism underpinning saccadic IOR is less clear.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Rewards modulate saccade latency but not exogenous spatial attention

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The eye movement system is sensitive to reward. However, whilst the eye movement system is extremely flexible, the extent to which changes to oculomotor behavior induced by reward paradigms persist beyond the training period or transfer to other oculomotor tasks is unclear. To address these issues we examined the effects of presenting feedback that represented small monetary rewards to spatial locations on the latency of saccadic eye movements, the time-course of learning and extinction of the effects of rewarding saccades on exogenous spatial attention and oculomotor inhibition of return. Reward feedback produced a relative facilitation of saccadic latency in a stimulus driven saccade task which persisted for three blocks of extinction trials. However, this hemifield-specific effect failed to transfer to peripheral cueing tasks. We conclude that rewarding specific spatial locations is unlikely to induce long-term, systemic changes to the human oculomotor or attention systems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Rewards modulate saccade latency but not exogenous spatial attention

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This latter form of IOR is caused by reflexive oculomotor response activation and serves to bias subsequent responding, oculomotor or otherwise, against the prior saccade vector (e.g., Posner, Rafal, Choate, & Vaughan, 1985; Hilchey, Klein, & Satel, 2014). The exact processes underlying the input-based form of IOR at 1 s CTOAs remain unclear though the effects may be induced experimentally by spatially repetitive sensory stimulation (e.g., Fecteau, Au, Armstrong, & Munoz, 2004; Smith, Ball, & Ellison, 2012) and/or nonoculomotor response priming (e.g., Hilchey, Satel, Ivanoff, & Klein, 2013, for consideration; de Jong, Liang, & Lauber, 1994) and may involve higher level object-based representations (e.g., Jordan & Tipper, 1998; Grison, Kessler, Paul, Jordan, & Tipper, 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When is inhibition of return input- or output-based? It depends on how you look at it.

Hilchey

Dohmen

Crowder

et al. 2016

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two important diagnostics have been used to infer whether the effect of inhibition of return, when preceded by a saccade, is primarily upon input (i.e., attentional/perceptual level) or output (i.e., response/decision level) processes. Data from antisaccade paradigms involving luminance targets in peripheral vision suggest input effects whereas data from spatially compatible manual responses to centrally presented arrow targets suggest output effects. Here, we combine these diagnostics to resolve the discrepancy. In separate conditions participants made a pro- or antisaccade to a peripheral stimulus. Upon returning gaze to the original fixation, left and right manual responses were made to left- and right-pointing arrows at fixation, respectively. The primary objective of the prosaccade condition was to determine whether an eye movement toward a visual stimulus that was not associated with a manual localization response would bias spatially compatible manual responses against the prior saccade vector. Manual responses were slowest in the direction of the prior saccade, consistent with an output-based attribution (e.g., Posner, Rafal, Choate, & Vaughan, 1985). The primary objective of the antisaccade condition was to determine whether an eye movement away from a visual stimulus would also bias subsequent manual responses. No apparent response bias was detected, consistent with an input-based attribution (e.g., Fecteau, Au, Armstrong, & Munoz, 2004). Collectively, the findings indicate that there are 2, dissociable forms of inhibition depending on saccadic response demands. Converging evidence from other paradigms is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

“…In other theoretical and empirical work (e.g., Hilchey et al, 2013), we are exploring the possibility that a process of automatic manual response activation, followed by response suppression when the activation exceeds some threshold [as has been hypothesized at times for negative compatibility effects (see Sumner, 2007, for review)], might generate an ICE that has been mistaken for IOR 4 . Another possibility is that input-based ICEs are mediated by relatively low-level visuo-cortical processes (e.g., Müller & Kleinschmidt, 2007; Satel et al, 2013; Smith, Ball, & Ellison, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Returning to “inhibition of return” by dissociating long-term oculomotor IOR from short-term sensory adaptation and other nonoculomotor “inhibitory” cueing effects.

Hilchey

Klein

Satel

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explored the nature and time course of effects generated by spatially uninformative peripheral cues by measuring these effects with localization responses to peripheral onsets or central arrow targets. In Experiment 1, participants made saccadic eye movements to equiprobable peripheral and central targets. At short cue-target onset asynchronies (CTOAs), responses to cued peripheral stimuli suffered from slowed responding attributable to sensory adaptation while responses to central targets were transiently facilitated, presumably due to cue-elicited oculomotor activation. At the longest CTOA, saccadic responses to central and peripheral targets were indistinguishably delayed, suggesting a common, output/decision effect (inhibition of return; IOR). In Experiment 2, we tested the hypothesis that the generation of this output effect is dependent on the activation state of the oculomotor system by forbidding eye movements and requiring keypress responses to frequent peripheral targets, while probing oculomotor behavior with saccades to infrequent central arrow targets. As predicted, saccades to central arrow targets showed neither the early facilitation nor later inhibitory effects that were robust in Experiment 1. At the long CTOA, manual responses to cued peripheral targets showed the typical delayed responses usually attributed to IOR. We recommend that this late "inhibitory" cueing effect (ICE) be distinguished from IOR because it lacks the cause (oculomotor activation) and effect (response bias) attributed to IOR when it was named by Posner, Rafal, Choate, and Vaughan (1985).

show abstract

Inhibition of Return Impairs Phosphene Detection

Cited by 10 publications

References 32 publications

Rewards modulate saccade latency but not exogenous spatial attention

Rewards modulate saccade latency but not exogenous spatial attention

When is inhibition of return input- or output-based? It depends on how you look at it.

Returning to “inhibition of return” by dissociating long-term oculomotor IOR from short-term sensory adaptation and other nonoculomotor “inhibitory” cueing effects.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About