Revealing effects of noninformative spatial cues: an EEG study of inhibition of return.

Simple responses to noninformatively cued spatial stimuli can be delayed whenever a cue has been briefly presented at the location of the subsequent target. This phenomenon (inhibition of return) might be due to a mechanism that inhibits irrelevant information. However, with sustained cues no inhibition is observed. It has been hypothesised that in the latter, task inhibition is masked by an excitation process. ERP measures support the inhibition-excitation account: (a) P1 suppression, assumed to reflect inhibition, was observed for all targets presented at a cued location. (b) A later negative component (Nd250) was increased with sustained cues, and hence might reflect the excitation process. (c) A negative component at right parietal electrode sites (Nd310) appeared only when inhibition of return was observed. A second study confirmed the link between these ERP components and mechanisms involved in inhibition of return.

[1]  George R. Mangun,et al.  Reflexive Attention Modulates Processing of Visual Stimuli in Human Extrastriate Cortex , 1998, Psychological science.

[2]  C. C. Wood,et al.  Scalp distributions of event-related potentials: an ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models. , 1985, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[3]  S. Tipper,et al.  Inhibition and Interference in Selective Attention: Some Tests of a Neural Network Model , 1996 .

[4]  S. Luck,et al.  Attention-Related Modulation of Sensory-Evoked Brain Activity in a Visual Search Task , 1993, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[5]  Steven A. Hillyard,et al.  Effects of spatial cuing on luminance detectability: Psychophysical and electrophysiological evidence for early selection. , 1994 .

[6]  M Eimer,et al.  Attending to quadrants and ring-shaped regions: ERP effects of visual attention in different spatial selection tasks. , 1999, Psychophysiology.

[7]  A. Sereno,et al.  Inhibition of return in manual and saccadic response systems , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  S. Tipper,et al.  Externally cued and internally generated selection : Differences in distractor analysis and inhibition , 1997 .

[9]  S. Tipper,et al.  Short Report: Object-Centred Inhibition of Return of Visual Attention , 1991, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[10]  R. Klein,et al.  Inhibition of return , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[11]  Jay Pratt,et al.  The time to detect targets at inhibited and noninhibited locations: Preliminary evidence for attentional momentum. , 1999 .

[12]  L. Riggio,et al.  Inhibitory and facilitatory effects of cue onset and offset , 1998, Psychological research.

[13]  G. Mangun.  Neural mechanisms of visual selective attention. , 1995, Psychophysiology.

[14]  J. Pratt,et al.  Inhibition of return in a discrimination task , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[15]  S. Tipper,et al.  On the Strategic Modulation of the Time Course of Facilitation and Inhibition of Return , 2001, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[16]  Steven J. Luck,et al.  Multiple mechanisms of visual-spatial attention: recent evidence from human electrophysiology , 1995, Behavioural Brain Research.

[17]  G Mulder,et al.  Visual spatial attention to stimuli presented on the vertical and horizontal meridian: an ERP study. , 1994, Psychophysiology.

[18]  S. Tipper.  The Negative Priming Effect: Inhibitory Priming by Ignored Objects , 1985, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[19]  M. Eimer.  “Sensory gating” as a mechanism for visuospatial orienting: Electrophysiological evidence from trial-by-trial cuing experiments , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[20]  E. Vogel,et al.  The visual N1 component as an index of a discrimination process. , 2000, Psychophysiology.

[21]  R A Abrams,et al.  Inhibition of return in discrimination tasks. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  Amishi P. Jha,et al.  Promoting Novelty in Vision: Inhibition of Return Modulates Perceptual-Level Processing , 1999 .

[23]  P. Maruff,et al.  Spatiotemporal distribution of facilitation and inhibition of return arising from the reflexive orienting of covert attention. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  B. Milliken,et al.  Inhibition of return and the attentional set for integrating versus differentiating information. , 1999, The Journal of general psychology.

[25]  M. Posner,et al.  The attention system of the human brain. , 1990, Annual review of neuroscience.

[26]  R. Abrams,et al.  Inhibition of return: effects of attentional cuing on eye movement latencies. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  Raymond Klein,et al.  Inhibitory tagging system facilitates visual search , 1988, Nature.

[28]  M. Eimer.  An ERP study on visual spatial priming with peripheral onsets. , 1994, Psychophysiology.

[29]  R. Klein,et al.  Inhibition of Return is a Foraging Facilitator in Visual Search , 1999 .

[30]  Lawrence M. Ward,et al.  An event-related brain potential study of inhibition of return , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[31]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Modulations of sensory-evoked brain potentials indicate changes in perceptual processing during visual-spatial priming. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  J. Pratt,et al.  Inhibition of return along the path of attention. , 1996, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[33]  J. Pratt,et al.  The spatial relationship between cues and targets mediates inhibition of return , 1998 .

[34]  Steven P. Tipper,et al.  Object-based inhibition of return in static displays , 1998 .

[35]  M. Eimer.  ERP modulations indicate the selective processing of visual stimuli as a result of transient and sustained spatial attention. , 1996, Psychophysiology.