Inhibition or facilitation of return: Does chromatic component count?
- PMID: 16961985
- DOI: 10.1017/S0952523806233261
Inhibition or facilitation of return: Does chromatic component count?
Abstract
Inhibitory effects have been reported when a target is preceded by a cue of the same color and location. Color-based inhibition was found using red and blue nonisoluminant stimuli (Law et al., 1995). Here we investigate whether this phenomenon depends on the chromatic subsystem involved by employing isoluminant colors varying along either the violet-yellow or purple-turquoise cardinal axis. Experiment 1 replicated Law et al.'s study: After fixating magenta, either a red or blue cue was presented, followed by a magenta "neutral attractor," and, finally, by a red or blue target. In Experiment 2, violet and yellow, cue or target, varied along a tritan confusion line in the CIE 1976 chromaticity diagram. In Experiment 3, purple and turquoise, cue or target, varied along a deutan confusion line in the CIE 1976 chromaticity diagram. Normal trichromats (n = 19) participated in all three experiments. In Experiment 1, color repetition indeed resulted in longer reaction times (RTs) (4.7 ms, P = 0.038). In Experiment 2, however, no significant color repetition effect was found; RTs to violet and yellow were not significantly different, though tending toward slower responses (2 ms) for violet repetition but faster (5 ms) for yellow. Experiment 3 also showed no color repetition effect (P = 0.58); notably, RTs were overall faster for purple than for turquoise (22 ms, P 0.05), but faster for turquoise (7 ms, P > 0.05). These findings demonstrate that color repetition is not always inhibitory but may turn facilitatory depending on the colors employed. The results indicate that disengagement of attention is an unlikely mechanism to be the sole explanation of previously reported color-based inhibition of return. We suggest a complementary, perceptual explanation: response (dis)advantage depends on whether the stimuli are isoluminant and on the opponent chromatic subsystem involved. The choice of the colors employed and the cue-attractor-target constellation also may be of significance.
Similar articles
-
Effects of target and distractor heterogeneity on search for a color target.Vision Res. 2005 Jun;45(14):1885-99. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2005.01.007. Vision Res. 2005. PMID: 15797778
-
Normal and dichromatic color discrimination measured with transient visual evoked potential.Vis Neurosci. 2006 May-Aug;23(3-4):617-27. doi: 10.1017/S0952523806233194. Vis Neurosci. 2006. PMID: 16962005
-
Neural correlates of spatial and non-spatial inhibition of return (IOR) in attentional orienting.Neuropsychologia. 2008 Sep;46(11):2766-75. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.05.017. Epub 2008 May 24. Neuropsychologia. 2008. PMID: 18597795
-
Association between cue lead time and template-for-rejection effect.Atten Percept Psychophys. 2019 Aug;81(6):1880-1889. doi: 10.3758/s13414-019-01761-0. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2019. PMID: 31114955 Review.
-
Color CRT characterization presented solely in terms of the CIE system.Percept Mot Skills. 1990 Aug;71(1):51-64. doi: 10.2466/pms.1990.71.1.51. Percept Mot Skills. 1990. PMID: 2235275 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous
