Motor IOR revealed for reaching

Cowper-Smith, Christopher D.; Westwood, David A.

doi:10.3758/s13414-013-0528-8

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The time course of the effect, often considered as a temporal indicator for the appearance of IOR, appears to derive from an interaction between the amount of IOR and the time course of the overlapping priming mechanism when cue and target appear at the same location and the CTOA is short. Despite the clear pattern of results in the present study, one has to admit that the conclusion does not necessarily also hold for directed movements such as saccades or manual pointing (Chica, Taylor, Lupi añez, & Klein, 2010;Cowper-Smith & Westwood, 2013;Satel & Wang, 2012).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 82%

Does response selection contribute to inhibition of return?

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inhibition of return (IOR) means delayed responses for targets at a cued compared to targets at an uncued location. It is assumed to reflect delayed reallocation of attention toward a previously attended location. Besides an attentional mechanism, IOR could also be due to a cue-evoked inhibition to respond toward a cued target. In the present study, IOR with simple, compatible, and incompatible choice responses was compared and tracked by means of event-related EEG activity. IOR was amplified with simple responses but did not differ between compatible and incompatible responses. Attention-related ERP correlates were constant across cue target onset asynchronies as were, in part, behavioral effects. Early, rather sensory ERP components varied with time, reflecting sensory or attentional interaction of cue and target processing. None of these effects varied with response requirements, indicating that response selection does not contribute to IOR in manual choice response tasks.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 82%

Does response selection contribute to inhibition of return?

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Examples of the effect of IOR would be a delay in the execution of eye movements (e.g. Taylor & Klein, 2000), of reaching movements (Cowper-Smith & Westwood, 2013), or an increase in response threshold (Zhao, Heinke, Ivanoff, Klein, & Humphreys, 2011). However, this paper focuses on the long-standing debate, whether IOR is caused by attentional or perceptual mechanisms (see Klein, 2000;Berlucchi, 2006; for reviews).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What causes IOR? Attention or perception? – Manipulating cue and target luminance in either blocked or mixed condition

Zhao

Heinke

2014

Vision Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the performance disadvantage when detecting a target presented at a previously cued location. The current paper contributes to the long-standing debate whether IOR is caused by attentional processing or perceptual processing. We present a series of four experiments which varied the cue luminance in mixed and blocked conditions. We hypothesised that if inhibition was initialized by an attentional process the size of IOR should not vary in the blocked condition as participants should be able to adapt to the level of cue luminance. However, if a perceptual process triggers inhibition both experimental manipulations should lead to varying levels of IOR. Indeed, we found evidence for the latter hypothesis. In addition, we also varied the target luminance in blocked and mixed condition. Both manipulations, cue luminance and target luminance, affected IOR in an additive fashion suggesting that the two stimuli affect human behaviour on different processing stages.

show abstract

“…Spatial and temporal changes in eye movements observed in relation to previous sensory and/or motor events can provide insight into the underlying neural mechanisms associated with both perception and action. A common approach in this regard has been to elicit saccades to targets distributed about a point of central fixation which serves as the starting point for all trials and to which the gaze must return after each target-directed saccade (e.g., Taylor and Klein, 2000 ; Fecteau et al, 2004 ; Reuter et al, 2006 ; Cowper-Smith and Westwood, 2013 ; Cowper-Smith et al, 2013 ). However, it is possible that any effects observed while employing such methodology may be influenced (or even contingent upon) the task structure requiring the participant to return their gaze to a central fixation point, because of the predictability that it introduces.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Directional interactions between current and prior saccades

Jones

Cowper-Smith

Westwood

2014

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One way to explore how prior sensory and motor events impact eye movements is to ask someone to look to targets located about a central point, returning gaze to the central point after each eye movement. Concerned about the contribution of this return to center movement, Anderson et al. (2008) used a sequential saccade paradigm in which participants made a continuous series of saccades to peripheral targets that appeared to the left or right of the currently fixated location in a random sequence (the next eye movement began from the last target location). Examining the effects of previous saccades (n−x) on current saccade latency (n), they found that saccadic reaction times (RT) were reduced when the direction of the current saccade matched that of a preceding saccade (e.g., two left saccades), even when the two saccades in question were separated by multiple saccades in any direction. We examined if this pattern extends to conditions in which targets appear inside continuously marked locations that provide stable visual features (i.e., target “placeholders”) and when saccades are prompted by central arrows. Participants completed 3 conditions: peripheral targets (PT; continuous, sequential saccades to peripherally presented targets) without placeholders; PT with placeholders; and centrally presented arrows (CA; left or right pointing arrows at the currently fixated location instructing participants to saccade to the left or right). We found reduced saccadic RT when the immediately preceding saccade (n−1) was in the same (vs. opposite) direction in the PT without placeholders and CA conditions. This effect varied when considering the effect of the previous 2–5 (n−x) saccades on current saccade latency (n). The effects of previous eye movements on current saccade latency may be determined by multiple, time-varying mechanisms related to sensory (i.e., retinotopic location), motor (i.e., saccade direction), and environmental (i.e., persistent visual objects) factors.

show abstract

Motor IOR revealed for reaching

Cited by 7 publications

References 48 publications

Does response selection contribute to inhibition of return?

Does response selection contribute to inhibition of return?

What causes IOR? Attention or perception? – Manipulating cue and target luminance in either blocked or mixed condition

Directional interactions between current and prior saccades

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About