"Inhibition of Return: Sensitivity and Criterion as a Function of Response Time": Correction to Ivanoff and Klein (2006).

Reports an error in the original article, "Inhibition of Return: Sensitivity and Criterion as a Function of Response Time" by Jason Ivanoff and Raymond M. Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2006 Aug, Vol 32[4], 908-919). On page 912, there are typographical errors in Table 1. On page 915, the last line of the left column incorrectly states that the mean response frequencies for Experiment 2 are presented within Table 2. The corrected information for both pages is presented here. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2006-09006-009.) Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to a mechanism that results in a performance disadvantage typically observed when targets are presented at a location once occupied by a cue. Although the time course of the phenomenon--from the cue to the target--has been well studied, the time course of the effect--from target to response--is unknown. In 2 experiments, the effect of IOR upon sensitivity and response criterion under different levels of speed stress was examined. In go/no-go and choice reaction time tasks, IOR had at least 2 distinct effects on information processing. Early in target processing, before sufficient target information has accrued, there is a bias against responding to cued targets. Later, as target information is allowed to accrue, IOR reduces sensitivity to the target's nonspatial feature. Three accounts relating to the early bias effect of IOR and the late effect of IOR on sensitivity are offered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Disinhibition of return: unnecessary and unlikely

Recently, from data obtained with a temporal order judgment (TOJ) task, Gibson and Egeth (1994) concluded that inhibition of return (IOR; a response time effect that reveals slower responding to targets at previously cued versus uncued locations) reflects impaired perceptual processing. By replotting their data, we demonstrate that the perception of temporal order is influenced only by the facilitatory effect of a cue at short stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) and is unaffected by IOR at long SOAs. The target paper proposed that, when extra stimuli are presented at task-relevant locations (i.e., in the TOJ task), IOR is prevented by a hypothetical process that is known as disinhibition of return (DOR). We argue that the assumptions that IOR affects perceptual processing and that DOR exists are unnecessary, as a more parsimonious response-based interpretation of IOR is consistent with their data. Further, we summarize recent results and present new data that demonstrate that DOR is unlikely.     

Inhibition of return to negative emotion: Evidence from an emotional expression detection task.

After the presentation of an uninformative spatial cue, it usually takes participants more time to respond to a target that appears at the cued location when the interval between the cue and target is long. This phenomenon is named inhibition of return (IOR), implying that returning attention to the cued location is inhibited because of attentional disengagement. The present study investigated whether irrelevant emotional information is processed by the attentional system in a similar manner. Uninformative positive and negative emotional cues were presented at the center of the screen, and faces were presented as the target. An emotional expression detection task was used to reveal the inhibitory and facilitatory aftereffects of the attentional processing of the emotional cues. An emotion-based IOR effect on reaction time was observed only after the presence of a negative emotional cue, implying that the attentional system tends to inhibit irrelevant negative emotion but not inhibit irrelevant positive emotion. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Eliminating inhibition of return by changing salient nonspatial attributes in a complex environment.

Inhibition of return (IOR) occurs when a target is preceded by an irrelevant stimulus (cue) at the same location: Target detection is slowed, relative to uncued locations. In the present study, we used relatively complex displays to examine the effect of repetition of nonspatial attributes. For both color and shape, attribute repetition produced a robust inhibitory effect that followed a time course similar to that for location-based IOR. However, the effect only occurred when the target shared both the feature (i.e., color or shape) and location with the cue; this constraint implicates a primary role for location. The data are consistent with the idea that the system integrates consecutive stimuli into a single object file when attributes repeat, hindering detection of the second stimulus. The results are also consistent with an interpretation of IOR as a form of habituation, with greater habituation occurring with increasing featural overlap of a repeated stimulus. Critically, both of these interpretations bring the IOR effect within more general approaches to attention and perception, rather than requiring a specialized process with a limited function. In this view, there is no process specifically designed to inhibit return, suggesting that IOR may be the wrong framing of inhibitory repetition effects. Instead, we suggest that repetition of stimulus properties can interfere with the ability to focus attention on the aspects of a complex display that are needed to detect the occurrence of the target stimulus; this is a failure of activation, not an inhibition of processing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

There’s little return for attentional momentum.

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to a delay in response time (RT) to targets appearing at a previously cued location. The prevailing view is that IOR reflects visual-motor inhibition. The “attentional momentum” account rejects this idea, and instead proposes that IOR reflects an automatic shift of attention away from the cued location resulting in slower RTs to targets presented there and speeded RTs to targets opposite the cue (an opposite facilitation effect or OFE). The drawback of this account is that J. J. Snyder, W. C. Schmidt, and A. Kingstone (2001) showed that there are few data to support the OFE, and no evidence that the OFE accounts for the IOR effect. Despite this evidence, several recent studies have promoted attentional momentum as a valid explanation for the IOR effect. Reanalysis of these recent studies and new data reveal, again, that IOR routinely occurs in the absence of the OFE, and when the OFE does occur, the IOR effect need not be present. This double dissociation invalidates attentional momentum as an explanation for the IOR effect. Extant data support an inhibitory explanation of the IOR effect. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Auditory and audiovisual inhibition of return

Two experiments examined any inhibition-of-return (IOR) effects from auditory cues and from preceding auditory targets upon reaction times (RTs) for detecting subsequent auditory targets. Auditory RT was delayed if the preceding auditory cue was on the same side as the target, but was unaffected by the location of the auditory target from the preceding trial, suggesting that response inhibition for the cue may have produced its effects. By contrast, visual detection RT was inhibited by the ipsilateral presentation of a visual target on the preceding trial. In a third experiment, targets could be unpredictably auditory or visual, and no peripheral cues intervened. Both auditory and visual detection RTs were now delayed following an ipsilateral versus contralateral target in either modality on the preceding trial, even when eye position was monitored to ensure central fixation throughout. These data suggest that auditory target-target IOR arises only when target modality is unpredictable. They also provide the first unequivocal evidence for cross-modal IOR, since, unlike other recent studies (e.g., Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996; Tassinari & Berlucchi, 1995; Tassinari & Campara, 1996), the present cross-modal effects cannot be explained in terms of response inhibition for the cue. The results are discussed in relation to neurophysiological studies and audiovisual links in saccade programming.     

Attentional bias to threat: A perceptual accuracy approach.

To investigate attentional bias to threatening information, the authors propose a new version of the spatial cueing paradigm in which the focus is on perceptual accuracy instead of response speed. In two experiments, healthy volunteers made unspeeded discriminations between three visual targets presented left or right. Each target was preceded by a visual cue (colored rectangle) at either the same (valid) or opposite (invalid) location. By means of differential classical conditioning with aversive white noise, a threat cue and a control cue were created. Analyses of error rates showed that cueing effects (lower proportion of errors in valid trials relative to invalid trials) were more pronounced in threat trials than in neutral trials. This threat-related bias was particularly because of threat cues reducing accuracy in invalid trials, indicating difficulty disengaging attention from threatening information. Engagement of attention was not affected by threat, as threat cues did not facilitate the processing of targets in valid trials. The findings are discussed in light of the strengths and limitations of spatial cueing tasks. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked-priming investigation of morphological representation.

[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 23(5) of Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition (see record 2008-09898-001). On page 854, two Hebrew words are missing from Appendix F. The corrected Appendix appears with the erratum.] All Hebrew words are composed of 2 interwoven morphemes: a triconsonantal root and a phonological word pattern. The lexical representations of these morphemic units were examined using masked priming. When primes and targets shared an identical word pattern, neither lexical decision nor naming of targets was facilitated. In contrast, root primes facilitated both lexical decisions and naming of target words that were derived from these roots. This priming effect proved to be independent of meaning similarity because no priming effects were found when primes and targets were semantically but not morphologically related. These results suggest that Hebrew roots are lexical units whereas word patterns are not. A working model of lexical organization in Hebrew is offered on the basis of these results. (A correction concerning this article appears in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1997, Vol 23(5), 1189–1191. On page 854 of the current issue, two Hebrew words are missing from Appendix F. The corrected Appendix appears in this correction.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Inhibition of return to social signals of fear.

The present study examined whether inhibition of return (IOR) is modulated by the fear relevance of the cue. Experiment 1 found similar magnitude of IOR was produced by neutral and fear faces and luminance matched cues. To allow a more sensitive measure of endogenously directed attention, Experiment 2 removed a central reorienting cue and more precisely measured the time course of IOR. At stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) of 500, 1,000 and 1,500 ms, fear face and luminance matched cues resulted in similar IOR. These findings suggest that IOR is triggered by event onsets and disregards event value. Views of IOR as an adaptive "foraging facilitator," whereby attention is guided to promote optimal sampling of important environmental events, are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Inhibitory mechanisms of attentional networks: Spatial and semantic inhibitory processing.

Four experiments assessed the relationships between the orienting and the executive networks of visual attention. Experiment 1 showed spatial inhibition of return (IOR) with target words. Experiment 2 showed a type of semantic inhibition that mimicked spatial IOR. Reaction times to targets preceded by 2 consecutively presented words, the prime and the intervening stimulus, were longer when the target and prime were related than when they were unrelated. Experiment 3 combined spatial and semantic inhibition in a lexical-decision task. Spatial IOR was observed with both related and unrelated targets, but semantic inhibition was observed only when target words were presented in uncued locations. A similar interaction between IOR and positive semantic priming was observed when the intervening stimulus was not presented (Experiment 4). Implications for the relationships between the 2 attentional networks are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Relationship Between Inhibition of Return and Saccade Trajectory Deviations.

After presentation of a peripheral cue, a subsequent saccade to the cued location is delayed (inhibition of return: IOR). Furthermore, saccades typically deviate away from the cued location. The present study examined the relationship between these inhibitory effects. IOR and saccade trajectory deviations were found after central (endogenous) and peripheral (exogenous) cuing of attention, and both effects were larger with an onset cue than with a color singleton cue. However, a dissociation in time course was found between IOR and saccade trajectory deviations. Saccade trajectory deviations occurred at short delays between the cue and the saccade, but IOR was found at longer delays. A model is proposed in which IOR is caused by inhibition applied to a preoculomotor attentional map, whereas saccade trajectory deviations are caused by inhibition applied to the saccade map, in which the final stage of oculomotor programming takes place. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Combining dispositions and evaluations of vocation and job to account for counterproductive work behavior in adolescent job apprentices.

[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 12(3) of Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (see record 2007-10372-007). The following errors were committed: (1) In Table 1, item 7 in the variable column is mislabeled. (2) On page 171, in the paragraph before the Discussion section, the sentence beginning on line 14 reads incorrectly. (3) The caption for Figure 1 reads incorrectly. (4) On page 166, left column, 4th line from the bottom, the sentence reads incorrectly. The corrected information is presented in the erratum.] In the present research, we investigated the joint impact of selected antecedents of counterproductive work behavior (CWB). A sample of German apprentices reported on their CWB and completed measures of situational evaluations (vocational preference, level and constructiveness of job satisfaction) believed to trigger CWB and of dispositional motivators (measured by integrity test subscales) and controls (self-control and another subset of integrity scales) of CWB. All predictors investigated showed the expected bivariate relationships with CWB. Multivariate analyses revealed that the triggering effect of an unfavorable vocational choice on CWB was fully mediated by job satisfaction. When predictors were aggregated, a composite of dispositional control variables had the largest effect on CWB and moderated the effects of motivational dispositions and situational evaluations. These results extend the knowledge on antecedents of CWB by investigating previously overlooked variables and samples and partially replicate recent findings on the joint impact of dispositions and work-related evaluations on CWB. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Automatic versus volitional orienting and the production of the inhibition-of-return effect.

A single, to-be-ignored peripheral flash (i.e., cue) reflexively attracts an orienting response (oculomotor/attention/head turn) that ultimately causes reaction time delays to target stimuli that later arise at this cued location, in relation to when the target appears at a new position (i.e., the inhibition-of-return [IOR] effect). The basic question posed here dealt with whether an IOR effect is also produced following volitional orienting. Results from paired cue-trial stimulations, one a distractor and one a target (nonsalient/salient) event, positioned more or less symmetrically on either side of fixation, supported the net vector model of IOR (R. Klein, J. Christie, & E. P. Morris, 2005). Automatic orienting did not yield an IOR effect at the stimulated positions. When the need to later report cue-trial target location was added, an IOR effect appeared at distractor-occupied, but not at target-occupied, locations. Seemingly, an IOR effect can follow volitional orienting. In this instance, the IOR process seems capable of undergoing modulation; however, such modulation was not evident following automatic orienting. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Adult age differences in the inhibition of return of visual attention.

Responses to targets are slower when they appear at a location to which attention has previously been directed than when they appear at other locations. This inhibition of return (IOR) effect is subserved by posterior brain attentional systems. In 4 experiments the IOR effect in elderly adults was found to be at least as large as in young adults for both discrimination tasks and for detection tasks. The time course and the spread of inhibition within the visual field were also equivalent in the 2 age groups. Additive factors logic was then used to test the hypothesis that the Stroop and IOR effects are due to a common mechanism, a failure to suppress attention. This hypothesis was not confirmed. The results of the 6 experiments are consistent with the hypothesis that there are changes in posterior brain systems responsible for selective attention to a location, contrary to prior claims. They cannot be explained by a general slowing of processing in old age. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The role of spatial working memory in inhibition of return: evidence from divided attention tasks

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to a bias against returning attention to a location that has been recently attended. In the present experiments, we examined the role of working memory in IOR by introducing secondary tasks (in the temporal interval between the cue and the target) that involved a working memory component. When the secondary task was nonspatial in nature (monitoring odd digits or adding digits), IOR was present, although overall reaction times were greater in the presence of the secondary task. When the task involved a spatial working memory load (remembering the directionality of arrows or the orientation of objects), IOR was eliminated. However, when the participants had incentive to process the directionality of an arrow but did not have to use any memory system, IOR persisted at peripheral locations. Overall, the results suggest that IOR is partially mediated by a spatial working memory system.     

The role of the fixation location in inhibition of return.

In examining the role of the fixation location in inhibition of return (IOR), 3 experiments were conducted in which an exogenous cue was used to reorient attention following a peripheral cue and before the appearance of a target. However, this cue occurred at either the traditional central fixation location or a nonfixated location. In Exp 1, 10 undergraduates' eye positions were monitored at the 3 different times during the trial (after the onset of the cue at 1 of the target locations; after the onset of the 2nd cue; after the onset of the target). In Exp 2, 16 undergraduates repeated the same procedures as in Exp 1 except that an additional cue was added. In Exp 3, 8 undergraduates repeated the same procedures as in Exp 1 except the placement of the fixation, peripheral, and target locations was altered. The results indicate that reorienting attention to a fixated location results in a significant reduction in the inhibitory effect. The results from the study suggest that IOR could serve as a mechanism that improves the efficiency of visual searches. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Spatiotemporal distribution of facilitation and inhibition of return arising from the reflexive orienting of covert attention.

Currently, there is debate regarding both the spatial and temporal relationship between facilitation and inhibition of return (IOR) components of attention, as observed on the covert orienting of visual attention task (COVAT). These issues were addressed in a series of experiments where the spatial and temporal relationships between cue and target were manipulated. Facilitation occurred only when the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) was short and there was temporal overlap between cue and target. IOR occurred only when SOA was long and there was no temporal overlap between cue and target. Facilitation encompassed the cued location and all locations between the cue and fixation, whereas IOR arose for the entire cued hemifield. These findings suggest that the facilitation and IOR found on COVATs that use noninformative peripheral cues are separable and stimulus-driven processes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Visual and motor effects in inhibition of return.

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slowed reaction times (RTs) when a target appears in the same rather than a different location as a preceding stimulus. The present study tested the hypothesis that IOR reflects a motor bias rather than a perceptual deficit. Two signals (S1 and S2) were presented on each trial. These signals were peripheral onsets or central arrows. The responses required to S1 and S2 were, respectively, no response–manual, manual–manual, saccadic–manual, no response–saccadic, manual–saccadic, and saccadic–saccadic. Uniting perceptual and motor bias views of IOR, the results demonstrated inhibition for responding to (a) peripheral signals when the eyes remained fixed (slowed visual processing) and (b) both peripheral and central signals when the eyes moved (slowed motor production). However, the results also emphasized that the nature of IOR depends fundamentally on the response modality used to reveal its influence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Examining Task Difficulty and the Time Course of Inhibition of Return: Detecting Perceptually Degraded Targets.

The ability to efficiently direct visual attention to salient features in the environment is a critical function of the visual system. The finding that people are slower to detect a target that appears at a previously cued location is thought to reflect a mechanism known as inhibition of return (IOR). Past research has shown that difficult target discriminations result in a greater amount of time needed to inhibit previously attended locations (i.e., a delayed onset of inhibition), suggesting that task difficulty plays a critical role in the allocation of attention. In this study, IOR was measured at a wide range of SOAs while participants detected either a perceptually degraded target or a standard, high luminance target. When responses were made to a perceptually degraded target, the time course of IOR was delayed by approximately 250 ms (relative to the control group), suggesting that the difficulty in detecting targets also influences the allocation of attention. The results are consistent with the notion that IOR is not simply a reflexive subcortical mechanism but rather involves top-down attentional control settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)