» Articles » PMID: 29520444

Sensory Adaptation and Inhibition of Return: Dissociating Multiple Inhibitory Cueing Effects

Overview
Journal Exp Brain Res
Specialty Neurology
Date 2018 Mar 10
PMID 29520444
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to an increase in reaction times to targets that appeared at a previously cued location relative to an uncued location, often investigated using a spatial cueing paradigm. Despite numerous studies that have examined many aspects of IOR, the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying IOR are still in dispute. The objective of the current research is to investigate the plausible mechanisms by manipulating the cue and target types between central and peripheral stimuli in a traditional cue-target paradigm with saccadic responses to targets. In peripheral-cueing conditions, we observed inhibitory cueing effects across all cue-target onset asynchronies (CTOAs) with peripheral targets, but IOR was smaller and arose later with central targets. No inhibition was observed in central-cueing conditions at any CTOAs. Empirical data were simulated using a two-dimensional dynamic neural field model. Our results and simulations support previous work demonstrating that, at short CTOAs, behavioral inhibition is only observed with repeated stimulation-an effect of sensory adaptation. With longer CTOAs, IOR is observed regardless of target type when peripheral cueing is used. Our findings suggest that behaviorally exhibited inhibitory cueing effects can be attributed to multiple mechanisms, including both attenuation of visual stimulation and local inhibition in the superior colliculus.

Citing Articles

Using Speed and Accuracy and the Simon Effect to Explore the Output Form of Inhibition of Return.

Redden R, Hilchey M, Aslam S, Ivanoff J, Klein R Vision (Basel). 2023; 7(1).

PMID: 36977305 PMC: 10056541. DOI: 10.3390/vision7010025.


Response Priming with Horizontally and Vertically Moving Primes: A Comparison of German, Malaysian, and Japanese Subjects.

Bermeitinger C, Kalbfleisch L, Schafer K, Lim A, Goymann H, Reuter L Adv Cogn Psychol. 2020; 16(2):131-149.

PMID: 32665804 PMC: 7341111. DOI: 10.5709/acp-0291-y.


What Neuroscientific Studies Tell Us about Inhibition of Return.

Satel J, Wilson N, Klein R Vision (Basel). 2019; 3(4).

PMID: 31735859 PMC: 6969912. DOI: 10.3390/vision3040058.


Inhibitory and Facilitatory Cueing Effects: Competition between Exogenous and Endogenous Mechanisms.

Lim A, Eng V, Osborne C, Janssen S, Satel J Vision (Basel). 2019; 3(3).

PMID: 31735841 PMC: 6802798. DOI: 10.3390/vision3030040.

References
1.
Tipper S, Weaver B, Jerreat L, Burak A . Object-based and environment-based inhibition of return of visual attention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1994; 20(3):478-99. View

2.
Ivanoff J, Klein R . The presence of a nonresponding effector increases inhibition of return. Psychon Bull Rev. 2001; 8(2):307-14. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196166. View

3.
Isoda M, Hikosaka O . A neural correlate of motivational conflict in the superior colliculus of the macaque. J Neurophysiol. 2008; 100(3):1332-42. PMC: 2544459. DOI: 10.1152/jn.90275.2008. View

4.
Satel J, Wang Z, Hilchey M, Klein R . Examining the dissociation of retinotopic and spatiotopic inhibition of return with event-related potentials. Neurosci Lett. 2012; 524(1):40-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.07.003. View

5.
Muller H, Rabbitt P . Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: time course of activation and resistance to interruption. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1989; 15(2):315-30. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.15.2.315. View