Inhibitory and Facilitatory Cueing Effects: Competition Between Exogenous and Endogenous Mechanisms

Overview

Journal Vision (Basel)

Specialty Ophthalmology

Date 2019 Nov 19

PMID 31735841

Authors

Alfred Lim

Vivian Eng

Caitlyn Osborne

Steve M J Janssen

Jason Satel

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Inhibition of return is characterized by delayed responses to previously attended locations when the cue-target onset asynchrony (CTOA) is long enough. However, when cues are predictive of a target's location, faster reaction times to cued as compared to uncued targets are normally observed. In this series of experiments investigating saccadic reaction times, we manipulated the cue predictability to 25% (counterpredictive), 50% (nonpredictive), and 75% (predictive) to investigate the interaction between predictive endogenous facilitatory (FCEs) and inhibitory cueing effects (ICEs). Overall, larger ICEs were seen in the counterpredictive condition than in the nonpredictive condition, and no ICE was found in the predictive condition. Based on the hypothesized additivity of FCEs and ICEs, we reasoned that the null ICEs observed in the predictive condition are the result of two opposing mechanisms balancing each other out, and the large ICEs observed with counterpredictive cueing can be attributed to the combination of endogenous facilitation at uncued locations with inhibition at cued locations. Our findings suggest that the endogenous activity contributed by cue predictability can reduce the overall inhibition observed when the mechanisms occur at the same location, or enhance behavioral inhibition when the mechanisms occur at opposite locations.

References

Boehnke S, Berg D, Marino R, Baldi P, Itti L, Munoz D . Visual adaptation and novelty responses in the superior colliculus. Eur J Neurosci. 2011; 34(5):766-79. PMC: 3168683. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07805.x. View

Satel J, Wang Z, Trappenberg T, Klein R . Modeling inhibition of return as short-term depression of early sensory input to the superior colliculus. Vision Res. 2011; 51(9):987-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2011.02.013. View

Marino R, Trappenberg T, Dorris M, Munoz D . Spatial interactions in the superior colliculus predict saccade behavior in a neural field model. J Cogn Neurosci. 2011; 24(2):315-36. DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00139. View

Hilchey M, Klein R, Satel J . Returning to "inhibition of return" by dissociating long-term oculomotor IOR from short-term sensory adaptation and other nonoculomotor "inhibitory" cueing effects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2014; 40(4):1603-16. DOI: 10.1037/a0036859. View

Mangun G, Hillyard S . The spatial allocation of visual attention as indexed by event-related brain potentials. Hum Factors. 1987; 29(2):195-211. DOI: 10.1177/001872088702900207. View

Doallo S, Lorenzo-Lopez L, Vizoso C, Rodriguez Holguin S, Amenedo E, Bara S . The time course of the effects of central and peripheral cues on visual processing: an event-related potentials study. Clin Neurophysiol. 2004; 115(1):199-210. DOI: 10.1016/s1388-2457(03)00317-1. View

Muller N, Mollenhauer M, Rosler A, Kleinschmidt A . The attentional field has a Mexican hat distribution. Vision Res. 2005; 45(9):1129-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2004.11.003. View

Klein R . Inhibitory tagging system facilitates visual search. Nature. 1988; 334(6181):430-1. DOI: 10.1038/334430a0. View

Amari S . Dynamics of pattern formation in lateral-inhibition type neural fields. Biol Cybern. 1977; 27(2):77-87. DOI: 10.1007/BF00337259. View

10.

Prime D, Ward L . Inhibition of return from stimulus to response. Psychol Sci. 2004; 15(4):272-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00665.x. View

11.

WURTZ R, Goldberg M . Activity of superior colliculus in behaving monkey. 3. Cells discharging before eye movements. J Neurophysiol. 1972; 35(4):575-86. DOI: 10.1152/jn.1972.35.4.575. View

12.

Lim A, Eng V, Janssen S, Satel J . Sensory adaptation and inhibition of return: dissociating multiple inhibitory cueing effects. Exp Brain Res. 2018; 236(5):1369-1382. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-018-5225-3. View

13.

Samuel A, Kat D . Inhibition of return: a graphical meta-analysis of its time course and an empirical test of its temporal and spatial properties. Psychon Bull Rev. 2004; 10(4):897-906. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196550. View

14.

May P . The mammalian superior colliculus: laminar structure and connections. Prog Brain Res. 2005; 151:321-78. DOI: 10.1016/S0079-6123(05)51011-2. View

15.

Wright R, Richard C . Location cue validity affects inhibition of return of visual processing. Vision Res. 2000; 40(17):2351-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0042-6989(00)00085-7. View

16.

Tian Y, Yao D . A study on the neural mechanism of inhibition of return by the event-related potential in the Go/NoGo task. Biol Psychol. 2008; 79(2):171-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.04.006. View

17.

Hillyard S, Vogel E, Luck S . Sensory gain control (amplification) as a mechanism of selective attention: electrophysiological and neuroimaging evidence. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1998; 353(1373):1257-70. PMC: 1692341. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.1998.0281. View

18.

McDonald J, Ward L, Kiehl K . An event-related brain potential study of inhibition of return. Percept Psychophys. 1999; 61(7):1411-23. DOI: 10.3758/bf03206190. View

19.

Fecteau J, Bell A, Munoz D . Neural correlates of the automatic and goal-driven biases in orienting spatial attention. J Neurophysiol. 2004; 92(3):1728-37. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00184.2004. View

20.

Luck , Woodman , Vogel . Event-related potential studies of attention. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000; 4(11):432-440. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01545-x. View