» Articles » PMID: 23361390

On the Nature of the Delayed "inhibitory" Cueing Effects Generated by Uninformative Arrows at Fixation

Overview
Specialty Psychology
Date 2013 Jan 31
PMID 23361390
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

When the interval between a spatially uninformative arrow and a visual target is short (<500 ms), response times (RTs) are fastest when the arrow points to the target. When this interval exceeds 500 ms, there is a near-universal absence of an effect of the arrow on RTs. Contrary to this expected pattern of results, Taylor and Klein (J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26:1639-1656, 2000) observed that RTs were slowest when a to-be-localized visual target occurred in the direction of a fixated arrow presented 1 s earlier (i.e., an "inhibitory" Cueing effect; ICE). Here we examined which factor(s) may have allowed the arrow to generate an ICE. Our experiments indicated that the ICE was a side effect of subthreshold response activation attributable to a task-induced association between the arrow and a keypress response. Because the cause of this ICE was more closely related to subthreshold keypress activation than to oculomotor activation, we considered that the effect might be more similar to the negative compatibility effect (NCE) than to inhibition of return (IOR). This similarity raises the possibility that classical IOR, when caused by a spatially uninformative peripheral onset event and measured by a keypress response to a subsequent onset, might represent, in part, another instance of an NCE. Serendipitously, we discovered that context (i.e., whether an uninformative peripheral onset could occur at the time of an uninformative central arrow) ultimately determined whether the "inhibitory" aftermath of automatic response activation would affect output or input pathways.

Citing Articles

The Effect of Cigarette Packaging and Illness Sensitivity on Attention to Graphic Health Warnings: A Controlled Study.

Hardardottir A, Al-Hamdani M, Klein R, Hurst A, Stewart S Nicotine Tob Res. 2020; 22(10):1788-1794.

PMID: 31907537 PMC: 7542648. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntz243.


Spatial gradients of oculomotor inhibition of return in deaf and normal adults.

Jayaraman S, Klein R, Hilchey M, Patil G, Mishra R Exp Brain Res. 2015; 234(1):323-30.

PMID: 26474575 DOI: 10.1007/s00221-015-4439-x.


In search of a reliable electrophysiological marker of oculomotor inhibition of return.

Satel J, Hilchey M, Wang Z, Reiss C, Klein R Psychophysiology. 2014; 51(10):1037-45.

PMID: 24976355 PMC: 4286015. DOI: 10.1111/psyp.12245.

References
1.
Cole G, Kuhn G . What the experimenter's prime tells the observer's brain. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010; 72(5):1367-76. DOI: 10.3758/APP.72.5.1367. View

2.
Simon J . Reactions toward the source of stimulation. J Exp Psychol. 1969; 81(1):174-6. DOI: 10.1037/h0027448. View

3.
Tassinari G, Aglioti S, Chelazzi L, Marzi C, Berlucchi G . Distribution in the visual field of the costs of voluntarily allocated attention and of the inhibitory after-effects of covert orienting. Neuropsychologia. 1987; 25(1A):55-71. DOI: 10.1016/0028-3932(87)90043-1. View

4.
Wang Z, Klein R . Focal spatial attention can eliminate inhibition of return. Psychon Bull Rev. 2012; 19(3):462-9. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-012-0226-x. View

5.
Ivanoff J, Klein R . Orienting of attention without awareness is affected by measurement-induced attentional control settings. J Vis. 2003; 3(1):32-40. DOI: 10.1167/3.1.4. View