Sensory adaptation and inhibition of return: dissociating multiple inhibitory cueing effects

Abstract

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to an increase in reaction times to targets that appeared at a previously cued location relative to an uncued location, often investigated using a spatial cueing paradigm. Despite numerous studies that have examined many aspects of IOR, the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying IOR are still in dispute. The objective of the current research is to investigate the plausible mechanisms by manipulating the cue and target types between central and peripheral stimuli in a traditional cue-target paradigm with saccadic responses to targets. In peripheral-cueing conditions, we observed inhibitory cueing effects across all cue-target onset asynchronies (CTOAs) with peripheral targets, but IOR was smaller and arose later with central targets. No inhibition was observed in central-cueing conditions at any CTOAs. Empirical data were simulated using a two-dimensional dynamic neural field model. Our results and simulations support previous work demonstrating that, at short CTOAs, behavioral inhibition is only observed with repeated stimulation-an effect of sensory adaptation. With longer CTOAs, IOR is observed regardless of target type when peripheral cueing is used. Our findings suggest that behaviorally exhibited inhibitory cueing effects can be attributed to multiple mechanisms, including both attenuation of visual stimulation and local inhibition in the superior colliculus.

Directing versus Attracting Attention: Exploring the Effectiveness of Central and Peripheral Cues in Panoramic Videos

“…A third explanation could be that participants became desensitized to the flicker with time [20,33], which also explains why many reported an ability to ignore it. Desensitization refers to decreased sensitivity of eye receptor cells due to constant stimulation, which can turn reflexive responses voluntary [41]. Subconsciously perceived flickering of the HMD display may have further increased the likelihood of desensitization.…”

Response Priming with Horizontally and Vertically Moving Primes: A Comparison of German, Malaysian, and Japanese Subjects

“…However, at shorter CTOAs, positive cueing effects are observed. The time course of positive cueing effects and IOR shares a similar pattern to that of PCEs and NCEs with motion primes in response priming: Positive cueing effects can be found at CTOAs shorter than around 200 ms and IOR is found at CTOAs longer than around 200 ms (e.g., Klein, 2000 ), which are suggested to be caused by the “winner-take-all” competition between inhibitory mechanisms and the transient activity of exogenous orienting ( Lim et al, 2018 ). Until now, it is unclear whether NCEs play a role in IOR and further studies are needed to better understand and distinguish the mechanisms responsible for IOR and NCEs.…”

What Neuroscientific Studies Tell Us about Inhibition of Return

“…Although a great deal of data could be reproduced with such implementations, it was determined that IOR at CTOAs greater than around 1000 ms could not be explained or accurately reproduced with such input-based mechanisms. More recent implementations of this model have incorporated a later inhibitory mechanism (i.e., IOR), presumably via pathways from cortical areas such as the frontal eye fields and/or posterior parietal cortex [75].…”