Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Feb;140(1):35-50.
doi: 10.1037/a0021091.

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

Frank K Hu  1 , Arthur G Samuel, Agnes S Chan
Affiliations

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

Frank K Hu et al. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2011 Feb.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Top: Target detection times of Experiment 1, broken down by Location (Same, Diff1 and Diff2) and Stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA); Bottom: Example of the sequence of events for a sample trial in Experiment 1 (Note: not drawn exactly to scale; in the actual displays, each frame was a 480 × 640 pixel display).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Top panel: IOR effects (difference in RT between Same and average of the two Diff locations), from Samuel & Weiner (2001; Experiment 1) [upward triangles], Samuel & Kat (2003; Experiment 1) [downward triangles], and the current study’s Experiment 1 [circles]. Bottom panel: Spatial differences in IOR (difference in RT between Diff1 location and Diff2 location); same symbols as top panel.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Top: Target detection times of Experiment 2, broken down by Color (repeated, nonrepeated), Location (Same, Diff1 and Diff2) and Stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA); Bottom: Example of the sequence of events for a sample trial in Experiment 2 (not drawn exactly to scale).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Top: Target detection times of Experiment 3, broken down by Color (repeated, nonrepeated), Location (Same, Diff1 and Diff2) and sSimulus onset asynchrony (SOA); Bottom: Example of the sequence of events for a sample trial in Experiment 3 (not drawn exactly to scale).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Top: Target detection times of Experiment 4, broken down by Shape (repeated, nonrepeated), Location (Same, Diff1 and Diff2) and Stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA); Bottom: Example of the sequence of events for a sample trial in Experiment 4 (not drawn exactly to scale).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Top: Target detection times of Experiment 5, broken down by Shape (repeated, nonrepeated), Location (Same, Diff1 and Diff2) and Stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA); Bottom: Example of the sequence of events for a sample trial in Experiment 5 (not drawn exactly to scale).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abrams RA, Dobkin RS. Inhibition of return: Effects of attentional cuing on eye movement latencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance. 1994;20:467–477. - PubMed
    1. Barry RJ. Promise versus reality in relation to the unitary orienting reflex: A case study examining the role of theory in psychophysiology. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2006;62:353–366. - PubMed
    1. Bennett PJ, Pratt J. The spatial distribution of inhibition of return. Psychological Science. 2001;12(1):76–80. - PubMed
    1. Brown SD, Heathcote A. The simplest complete model of choice reaction time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cognitive Psychology. 2008;57:153–178. - PubMed
    1. Chajut E, Schupak A, Algom D. Are spatial and dimensional attention separate? Evidence from Posner, Stroop, and Eriksen tasks. Memory & Cognition. 2009;37(6):924–934. - PubMed

Publication types