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

Hilchey, Matthew D.; Klein, RM; Satel, J

doi:10.1037/a0036859

Cited by 69 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on these responses, it appears that we cannot eliminate any criteria from the list. The low rate of endorsement of fixating eyes on centre (0.08 participants) might be taken to suggest that most researchers believe that the IOR generated when the eyes are allowed (or required) to move is substantially the same as the IOR generated when eye movements are forbidden (but see Berlucchi, 2006;Hilchey, Klein & Satel, 2014;Taylor and Klein, 2000).…”

Section: Criteria For Identifying Iormentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhibition of return: A phenomenon in search of a definition and a theoretical framework

Dukewich

Klein

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a study of scientific nomenclature, we explore the diversity of perspectives researchers endorse for the phenomenon of inhibition of return (IOR). IOR is often described as an effect whereby people are slower to respond to a target presented at a recently stimulated or inspected location as compared to a target presented at a new location. Since its discovery, scores of papers have been published on IOR, and researchers have proposed, accepted and rejected a variety of potential causes, mechanisms, effects and components for the phenomenon. Experts in IOR were surveyed about their opinions regarding various aspects of IOR and the literature exploring it. We found variety both between and within experts surveyed, suggesting that most researchers hold implicit, and often quite unique assumptions about IOR. These widely varied assumptions may be hindering the creation or acceptance of a central theoretical framework regarding IOR; and this variety may portend that what has been given the label "IOR" may be more than one phenomenon requiring more than one theoretical explanation. We wonder whether scientific progress in domains other than IOR might be affected by too broad (or perhaps too narrow) a range of phenomena to which our nomenclature is applied. Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article

show abstract

Section: Criteria For Identifying Iormentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhibition of return: A phenomenon in search of a definition and a theoretical framework

Dukewich

Klein

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The term "oculomotor IOR" has been used in several recent studies to stress the importance of oculomotor activation in the generation of ICEs (or IOR; e.g., Hilchey et al, 2014;Klein & Hilchey, 2011;Wang et al, 2012). In the present experiment, we explored whether oculomotor ICEs, when evoked by saccadic responses to central arrow cues, carry over to the skeletomotor system to delay manual responses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With central arrow cues and targets, Cowper-Smith, Eskes, and Westwood (2013) observed slower reaching responses toward previously touched locations, providing clear evidence that skeletomotor activation also gives rise to outputbased ICEs. Although such an ICE does not meet the theoretical definition of IOR (Hilchey et al, 2014;Posner et al, 1985), it dovetails with the observation of inhibitory tags in manual foraging (Thomas et al, 2006) and affords the function of biasing orienting toward novelty.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A secondary purpose of the present study was to reexamine this issue. Saccadic responses to central arrow cues have been shown to evoke an oculomotor ICEthat is, an ICE that satisfies the theoretical definition of IOR (Hilchey et al, 2014). If oculomotor ICEs do carry over to the skeletomotor system, a robust ICE would also be revealed with manual button responses to central arrow targets.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This later ICE was named "inhibition of return" (IOR) by Posner, Rafal, Choate, and Vaughan (1985), to reflect the theoretical proposition that, once attention has left a location, it is inhibited to return. As a theoretical construct implied in Posner et al (1985), IOR entails both a cause and an effect: "In cause, IOR occurs in the aftermath of oculomotor activation" and "in effect, IOR is a long-lasting response bias that affects overt and covert orienting" (Hilchey, Klein, & Satel, 2014, p. 1604. For clarity, in the present article we will use the term ICE rather than IOR to describe cueing effects that may have been caused by IOR or, alternatively, by other mechanisms functionally similar to it.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Inhibitory cueing effects following manual and saccadic responses to arrow cues

Ding

Satel

et al. 2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

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

Dyslexic children are sluggish in disengaging spatial attention

Fu¹,

Zhao²,

Ding

et al. 2019

Dyslexia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous work has shown that inefficient attentional orienting is likely a causal factor for dyslexia; however, the nature of this attentional dysfunction remains unclear. The process of attentional orienting is characterized by an early facilitation effect, resulting from the successful engagement of attention, and a later inhibitory effect—frequently referred to as inhibition of return (IOR)—which encourages attentional disengagement and facilitates efficient visual sampling. The present study examined the time course of attentional orienting in dyslexic and typically developing children, by parametrically manipulating the cue‐target onset asynchronies in a spatial cueing task. Experiment 1 revealed an early facilitation effect in dyslexic children, suggesting that they have no issue in engaging attention to salient spatial locations. However, contrast to both age‐matched and reading level‐matched healthy controls, no reliable IOR effect was observed in dyslexic children, suggesting that they have difficulties in disengaging attention. When a second cue was presented to encourage attentional disengagement in Experiment 2, reliable IOR effects were observed in the same group of dyslexic children, and importantly, the onset time of IOR was comparable with that in healthy controls. These results clearly show a selective impairment of attentional disengagement in dyslexic children and provide a solid empirical basis for intervention programmes focusing on attentional shifting.

show abstract

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

Cited by 69 publications

References 75 publications

Inhibition of return: A phenomenon in search of a definition and a theoretical framework

Inhibition of return: A phenomenon in search of a definition and a theoretical framework

Inhibitory cueing effects following manual and saccadic responses to arrow cues

Dyslexic children are sluggish in disengaging spatial attention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About