Is inhibition of return a reflexive effect?

The inhibition of return (IOR) phenomenon is routinely considered an effect of reflexive attention because the paradigm used to generate IOR employs peripheral cues that are uninformative as to where a target will appear. Because the cues are spatially unreliable it is thought that there is no reason for attention to be committed volitionally to them, and hence, the IOR effect is considered reflexive. What has been generally overlooked, however, is that the cues provide reliable temporal information as to when a target will occur. This predictive information is used by participants to prepare volitionally for when a target is likely to appear. We investigated whether the IOR effect is a product of the volitional application of attention to peripheral cues for the use of their temporal information. To test this idea we rendered the temporal information provided by peripheral cues unreliable. While this eliminated participants using the cues volitionally, it did not abolish the IOR phenomenon. These data demonstrate two new findings. First, the IOR effect is fundamentally a reflexive phenomenon. Second, when peripheral cues are not used volitionally, the IOR effect is attenuated. Together, the present findings indicate that the IOR effect can be modulated by volitional (top-down) processes but it is not the product of them. We argue that an intimate link between fronto-parietal regions and the superior colliculus provide a functional neural mechanism for this volitional effect to impact IOR.

[1]  Rolf Ulrich,et al.  Locus of the effect of temporal preparation: evidence from the lateralized readiness potential. , 2003, Psychophysiology.

[2]  A. Sereno,et al.  The role of response in spatial attention: direct versus indirect stimulus–response mappings , 2002, Vision Research.

[3]  H. Müller,et al.  Probing distractor inhibition in visual search: inhibition of return. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  John K. Tsotsos,et al.  Neurobiology of Attention , 2005 .

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

[6]  M. Posner Chronometric explorations of mind : the third Paul M. Fitts lectures, delivered at the University of Michigan, September 1976 , 1978 .

[7]  R. Rafal,et al.  The neurology of inhibition: Integrating controlled and automatic processes. , 1994 .

[8]  M. Posner,et al.  Inhibition of return : Neural basis and function , 1985 .

[9]  Jillian H. Fecteau,et al.  Using auditory and visual stimuli to investigate the behavioral and neuronal consequences of reflexive covert orienting. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[10]  Ewart A. C. Thomas The selectivity of preparation. , 1974 .

[11]  George R. Mangun,et al.  Identifying the Neural Systems of Top-Down Attentional Control: A Meta-analytic Approach , 2005 .

[12]  A. Kingstone,et al.  Inhibition of return: Dissociating attentional and oculomotor components. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  A. Kingstone,et al.  Inhibition of return and visual search: How many separate loci are inhibited? , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  Jillian H. Fecteau,et al.  Neural correlates of the automatic and goal-driven biases in orienting spatial attention. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[15]  Robert D. Rafal,et al.  Inhibitory Tagging of Locations in the Blind Field of Hemianopic Patients , 1997, Consciousness and Cognition.

[16]  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.

[17]  T A Mondor,et al.  Predictability of the cue-target relation and the time-course of auditory inhibition of return , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[19]  P. Calabresi,et al.  Saccade preparation inhibits reorienting to recently attended locations. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  M. Posner,et al.  Components of visual orienting , 1984 .

[21]  Alan Kingstone,et al.  Inhibition of return at multiple locations in visual search: When you see it and when you don't , 2001, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[22]  Avishai Henik,et al.  Inhibition of return in spatial attention: direct evidence for collicular generation , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[23]  John T. Serences,et al.  Parietal mechanisms of attentional control: locations, features, and objects , 2005 .

[24]  M. Jones,et al.  Temporal Aspects of Stimulus-Driven Attending in Dynamic Arrays , 2002, Psychological science.

[25]  A. Henik,et al.  The Endogenous Modulation of IOR is Nasal-Temporal Asymmetric , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[26]  B. Milliken,et al.  Orienting in space and time: Joint contributions to exogenous spatial cuing effects , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[27]  M. Corbetta,et al.  Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain , 2002, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

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

[29]  P Bertelson,et al.  The Time Course of Preparation* , 1967, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[30]  R. Klein,et al.  Contribution of the Primate Superior Colliculus to Inhibition of Return , 2002, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[31]  Amelia R Hunt,et al.  Integration of competing saccade programs. , 2004, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[32]  T. Carr,et al.  Inhibitory Processes in Attention, Memory and Language , 1994 .