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

Abstract

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

Peripheral stimuli generate different forms of inhibition of return when participants make prosaccades versus antisaccades to them

“…By demonstrating that the critical factor for determining the form of inhibition is not whether overt orienting responses are involved (i.e., Taylor & Klein, 2000), but rather whether eye movements are permitted toward the source of stimulation, the data support the proposal that input-based forms of IOR occur when the oculomotor response system responsible for reflexively generated saccades is in a tonically suppressed state ; see also . Here we have shown dissociable effects on information processing efficiency, which converge with the findings of Hilchey, Dohmen, Crowder and Klein (2016), who demonstrated a dissociation based on how these effects can be measured. As in the present study, their observers were required to generate either a prosaccade or antisaccade at the time of a spatially uninformative peripheral cue.…”

“…This was the number of participants required in order to obtain data for 20 observers in each group after exclusion criteria (see Results). This is a larger sample size per condition than the principal investigations we wish to extend Hilchey et al, 2016), so as to ensure sufficient power to replicate these effects. All observers were recruited from the undergraduate subject pool at Dalhousie University.…”

“…Although the nature of the inhibition is modulated by whether the task involves eye movements toward stimuli, we question whether the output-based inference of Taylor and Klein (2000) generalizes to all instances of overt orienting Hilchey, Dohmen, Crowder, & Klein, 2016). For instance, an overt orienting response may be made toward (prosaccade) or away from (antisaccade) a peripheral onset.…”

Feature integration in basic detection and localization tasks: Insights from the attentional orienting literature

“…These mechanisms can bias attentional orienting by reducing the salience or priority of previously attended objects or inputs, or by making people more reluctant to respond to previously attended locations, depending on the involvement of the oculomotor system (Grison, Kessler, Paul, Jordan, & Tipper, 2004;Hilchey, Klein, & Satel, 2014;Hilchey, Pratt, & Christie, 2018;Satel, Hilchey, Wang, Story, & Klein, 2013;Taylor & Klein, 2000). Regardless of whether the slower responses for target location repeats relative to switches are due to degradation in the quality of the input signal (e.g., Smith, Ball, & Ellison, 2012) or to a reluctance to respond in the direction of the prior target location (e.g., Hilchey, Dohmen, Crowder, & Klein, 2016), the repetition of the target's form and/or color should not modify the effect.…”

Inhibition of return modulates the flash-lag effect

“…On the one hand, some studies have argued that the oculomotor system pertains to some types of IOR; accordingly, a perceptual process is modulated when fixation is maintained, whereas a motoric process is modulated when eye movements are made to a cued location (Chica et al, 2010;Taylor & Klein, 2000). On the other hand, several studies have argued that the activation state of the reflexive oculomotor system controls which type of IOR is generated; accordingly, a perceptual form is generated when the system is suppressed, whereas a motoric form is generated when the system is not suppressed (Hilchey, Dohmen, Crowder, & Klein, 2016;Hilchey et al, 2014;Redden, Hilchey, & Klein, 2016; for a review, see . In either case, it has been suggested that a blocked design is not an optimal procedure to segregate these different types of IOR (Hilchey, Klein, & Ivanoff, 2012).…”