On the relationship between occipital cortex activity and inhibition of return

Prime, David J.; Jolicœur, Pierre

doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00858.x

Cited by 34 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 46 publications

(89 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with this hypothesis hit rates for detecting TMS induced phosphenes were significantly reduced when phosphenes appeared at a cued location, compared with trials where phosphenes were spatially separate from the cued location. These data are consistent with previous reports that IOR is associated with changes in the strength of signals in early visual cortex (e.g., Anderson & Rees, 2011;Prime & Jolicoeur, 2009;Muller & Kleinschmidt, 2007;Prime & Ward, 2004Wascher & Tipper, 2004;McDonald et al, 1999;Eimer, 1994). However, the results extend these previous findings in two important ways.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Second, there seems to be no apriori reason for participants to systematically adopt a looser criterion for phosphenes that appear at the uncued location than those that appear at the cued location. Finally, a reduced signal strength interpretation is consistent with previous neurophysiological data demonstrating that IOR is associated with changes in BOLD signal and ERP amplitude (e.g., Prime & Jolicoeur, 2009;Muller & Kleinschmidt, 2007). These neurophysiological effects are not predicted by a criterion shift explanation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…A number of studies have shown that IOR is associated with a reduction in the amplitude of ERPs generated by stimuli at inhibited locations (Prime & Jolicoeur, 2009;Prime & Ward, 2004Wascher & Tipper, 2004;McDonald, Ward, & Kiehl, 1999), and the magnitude of this amplitude change is modulated by factors that also effect the magnitude of the IOR effect, such as the presence of a central reorienting event (Prime & Jolicoeur, 2009). These data would seem to suggest that IOR is associated with the modulation of signals in early visual cortex.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Inhibition of Return Impairs Phosphene Detection

Smith¹,

Ball²,

Ellison³

2012

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Additional information:Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. . Although a great deal is known about the effects of spatial attention on processing in visual cortex, much less is known about the effects of IOR on early visual areas. One possibility is that IOR acts in an opposite way to spatial attention, such that, whereas spatial attention enhances target related neural signals in visual cortex, IOR suppress target-related signals. Using a novel dual-coil TMS protocol, we found that IOR reduced the probability of detecting a TMS-induced phosphene in extrastriate cortex ( V5). Specifically, a nonpredictive spatial precue presented 500 or 800 msec before stimulation significantly reduced the probability of detecting a phosphene when the precue appeared contralaterally to the site of stimulation (i.e., ipsilaterally to the potential location of the phosphene), compared with ipsilaterally or centrally presented cues. This result demonstrates that IOR facilitates visual exploration by directly affecting the strength of target-related signals in extrastriate visual cortex. This result is consistent with neurophysiological models of attention, which postulate that IOR modulates perception by biasing competition between sensory representations. ■

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Inhibition of Return Impairs Phosphene Detection

Smith¹,

Ball²,

Ellison³

2012

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our failure to observe an ICE in the saccadicmanual task was in drastic contrast to previous observations of ICEs in similar tasks (e.g., Posner et al, 1985;Taylor & Klein, 2000). However, since previous work has demonstrated the importance of the cue-back signal in revealing ICEs (e.g., Pratt & Fischer, 2002;Prime & Jolicoeur, 2009; but see Possamaï, 1991), it is possible that we failed to observe ICEs in the saccadic-manual task because Experiment 2 did not include cue-back signals. This possibility was explored in Experiment 3 through the use of an auditory cue-back signal.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 55%

Inhibitory cueing effects following manual and saccadic responses to arrow cues

Ding

Satel

et al. 2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With two cueing tasks, in the present study we examined output-based inhibitory cueing effects (ICEs) with manual responses to arrow targets following manual or saccadic responses to arrow cues. In all experiments, ICEs were observed when manual localization responses were required to both the cues and targets, but only when the cue-target onset asynchrony (CTOA) was 2,000 ms or longer. In contrast, when saccadic responses were made in response to the cues, ICEs were only observed with CTOAs of 2,000 ms or less-and only when an auditory cue-back signal was used. The present study also showed that the magnitude of ICEs following saccadic responses to arrow cues decreased with time, much like traditional inhibition-of-return effects. The magnitude of ICEs following manual responses to arrow cues, however, appeared later in time and had no sign of decreasing even 3 s after cue onset. These findings suggest that ICEs linked to skeletomotor activation do exist and that the ICEs evoked by oculomotor activation can carry over to the skeletomotor system.

show abstract

“…To the extent that the observers obeyed this request, the investigations were likely measuring the perceptual/attentional aftereffect of spatial cueing. In addition to observing IOR behaviorally, many of these studies have also revealed significant P1 reductions (P1 cueing effects) for cued targets (McDonald, Ward, & Kiehl, 1999;Prime & Jolicoeur, 2009a;Prime & Ward, 2004, 2006Tian & Yao, 2008;van der Lubbe, Vogel, & Postma, 2005;Wascher & Tipper, 2004). However, as is illustrated in Fig.…”

Section: Neural Signature Of Iormentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of ignored versus foveated cues upon inhibition of return: An event-related potential study

Satel

Hilchey

Wang

et al. 2012

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taylor and Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26:1639-1656, 2000) discovered two mutually exclusive "flavors" of inhibition of return (IOR): When the oculomotor system is "actively suppressed," IOR affects input processes (the perception/attention flavor), whereas when the oculomotor system is "engaged," IOR affects output processes (the motor flavor). Studies of brain activity with ignored cues have typically reported that IOR reduces an early sensory event-related potential (ERP) component (i.e., the P1 component) of the brain's response to the target. Since eye movements were discouraged in these experiments, the P1 reduction might be a reflection of the perception/attention flavor of IOR. If, instead of ignoring the cue, participants made a prosaccade to the cue (and then returned to fixation) before responding to the target, the motor flavor of IOR should then be generated. We compared these two conditions while monitoring eye position and recording ERPs to the targets. If the P1 modulation is related to the perceptual/ attentional flavor of IOR, we hypothesized that it might be absent when the motoric flavor of IOR was generated by a prosaccade to the cue. Our results demonstrated that targetrelated P1 reductions and behavioral IOR were similar, and significant, in both conditions. However, P1 modulations were significantly correlated with behavioral IOR only when the oculomotor system was actively suppressed, suggesting that P1 modulations may only affect behaviorally exhibited IOR when the attentional/perceptual flavor of IOR is recruited.

show abstract

On the relationship between occipital cortex activity and inhibition of return

Cited by 34 publications

References 46 publications

Inhibition of Return Impairs Phosphene Detection

Inhibition of Return Impairs Phosphene Detection

Inhibitory cueing effects following manual and saccadic responses to arrow cues

The effects of ignored versus foveated cues upon inhibition of return: An event-related potential study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About