Inhibition of return is at the midpoint of simultaneous cues
- PDF / 301,730 Bytes
- 9 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 69 Downloads / 200 Views
Inhibition of return is at the midpoint of simultaneous cues John Christie & Matthew D. Hilchey & Raymond M. Klein
# Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2013
Abstract When multiple cues are presented simultaneously, Klein, Christie, and Morris (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12:295–300, 2005) found a gradient of inhibition (of return, IOR), with the slowest simple manual detection responses occurring to targets in the direction of the center of gravity of the cues. Here, we explored the possibility of extending this finding to the saccade response modality, using methods of data analysis that allowed us to consider the relative contributions of the distance from the target to the center of gravity of the array of cues and the nearest element in the cue array. We discovered that the bulk of the IOR effect with multiple cues, in both the previous and present studies, can be explained by the distance between the target and the center of gravity of the cue array. The present results are consistent with the proposal advanced by Klein et al., (2005) suggesting that this IOR effect is due to population coding in the oculomotor pathways (e.g., the superior colliculus) driving the eye movement system toward the center of gravity of the cued array. Keywords Attention . Eye movements . Inhibition of return . Saccade . Center-of-gravity effect Whereas the capture of attention is a frequent consequence of a stimulus event in the visual periphery, Posner and Cohen (1984) discovered that an inhibitory aftereffect follows the removal of attention from a stimulated location. The resultant delay in responding to targets presented at previously stimulated peripheral locations is generally called inhibition of return (IOR). Posner and Cohen proposed that such
J. Christie (*) : M. D. Hilchey : R. M. Klein Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Dalhousie University, 1355 Oxford Street, P.O. Box 15000, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4R2, Canada e-mail: [email protected]
inhibition could serve to encourage orienting toward novelty. Klein (1988, Klein & MacInnes, 1999; see also Snyder & Kingstone, 2000; Tipper, Weaver, Jerreat, & Burak, 1994) later extended this idea by suggesting that IOR might facilitate visual search by discouraging reinspection of previously processed locations (for reviews, see Klein, 2000; Wang & Klein, 2010). Despite these well-ingrained ideas, the behavioral characteristics of IOR, and the boundary conditions thereof, are often contested (cf., e.g., Fecteau & Munoz, 2005, 2006, to Klein & Hilchey, 2011; Klein & Taylor, 1994; and Taylor & Klein, 2000). Using stimulus arrays of one to four uninformative peripheral cues to generate IOR, and measuring it by having observers make simple manual detection responses to single target probes, Klein et al. (2005) confirmed the presence of a gradient of IOR around a singly cued location (Bennett & Pratt, 2001; Dorris, Taylor, Klein, & Munoz, 1999; Vaughan, 1984). Importantly, they also discovered that although IOR was present when multiple locations were cued simultaneously, contrar
Data Loading...
