Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 68, Issue 1, pp 41–54 | Cite as

Location and shape in inhibition of return

  • Lucia Riggio
  • Ilaria Patteri
  • Carlo Umiltà
Original Article

Abstract

Inhibition of return (IOR) is characterized by a delay in responding to a target preceded by an irrelevant stimulus (cue) at the same location, or, in other words, by a response delay when the same location is stimulated twice. It is not clear, however, if the same phenomenon is present when there is a repetition of a simple nonspatial attribute of the stimulus. The present study examines the repetition of shape. Six experiments were conducted. In Experiments 1, 2, 3, and 6 the stimuli were geometrical shapes, whereas in Experiments 4 and 5 letters were used. In Experiment 1 all the stimuli were presented at fixation, whereas in Experiments 2 to 6 they were presented in the periphery. In Experiments 2 and 3, location and shape of the cue and the target were independently manipulated in order to test independently inhibitory effects (IOR?) attributable to location repetition and shape repetition. Results showed an inhibitory effect for location and a much smaller inhibitory effect for shape. The latter was restricted to the cued location. Experiments 4 and 5 tested the possibility that inhibition caused by shape repetition is due to repetition blindness. Experiment 6 contrasted the presence or absence of a central neutral attractor in the delay interval between presentation of the cue and the target. Taken together the results seem to favor IOR as the basis for the inhibition caused by shape repetition.

Keywords

Superior Colliculus Rapid Serial Visual Presentation Catch Trial Short SOAs Repetition Blindness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by grants from the CNR and MURST. We thank B. M. Sheliga and R. Tagliavini for their help during the study. We also thank L. F. Fuentes, H. Heuer, and an anonymous reviewer for very helpful comments on an earlier version of the paper.

References

  1. Bavelier, D., & Potter, M. C. (1992). Visual and phonological codes in repetition blindness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 134–147.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Berlucchi, G., Tassinari, G., Marzi, C. A., & Di Stefano, M. (1989). Spatial distribution of the inhibitory effect of peripheral non-informative cues on simple reaction time to non-fixed visual targets. Neuropsychologia, 27, 201–221.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Danzinger, S., & Kingstone, A. (1999). Unmasking the inhibition of return phenomenon. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 1024–1037.Google Scholar
  4. Duncan, J. (1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 501–517.Google Scholar
  5. Epstein, R., & Kanwisher, N. (1999). Repetition blindness for location: Evidence for automatic spatial coding in an RSVP task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1855–1866.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Fox, E., & de Fockert, J. (2001). Inhibitory effects of repeating color and shape: Inhibition of return or repetition blindness? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 798–812.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Fuentes, L. J., Vivas, A. B., & Humphreys, G. W. (1999). Inhibitory tagging of stimulus properties in inhibition of return: Effects on semantic priming and flanker interference. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 149–164.Google Scholar
  8. Gawryszewski, L. G., Thomaz, T. G., Machado-Pinheiro, W., & Sant'Anna, A. N. (1994). Onset and offset of a visual cue have different effects on manual reaction time to a visual target. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 27, 67–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Georgeson, M. A., & Georgeson, J. M. (1987). Facilitation and masking of briefly presented gratings: Time-course and contrast dependence. Vision Research, 27, 369–379.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Humphreys, G. W., & Bruce, V. (1989). Visual Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Jordan, H., & Tipper, S. P. (1998). Object-based inhibition of return in static displays. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5, 504–509.Google Scholar
  12. Kanwisher, N. (1987). Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation. Cognition, 27, 117–143.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kanwisher, N. (1991). Repetition blindness and illusory conjunctions: Errors in binding visual types with visual tokens. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 404–421.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kanwisher, N., & Potter, M. C. (1990). Repetition blindness: Levels of processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 30–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kanwisher, N., Driver, J., & Machado, L. (1995). Spatial repetition blindness is modulated by selective attention to color and shape. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 303–337.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Klein, R. M. (1988). Inhibitory tagging system facilitates visual search. Nature, 334, 430–431.Google Scholar
  17. Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 138–147.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Klein, R. M., & Taylor, T. L. (1994). Categories of cognitive inhibition with reference to attention. In D. Dagenbach & T. H. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory mechanisms in attention memory and language (pp. 113–150). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kwak, H., & Egeth, H. (1992). Consequences of allocating attention to locations and to other attributes. Perception & Psychophysics, 51, 455–464.Google Scholar
  20. Lambert, A. J., & Hockey, G. R. J. (1991). Peripheral visual changes and spatial attention. Acta Psychologica, 76, 149–163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Law, M. B., Pratt, J., & Abrams, R. A. (1995). Color-based inhibition of return. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 402–408.Google Scholar
  22. Maruff, P., Yucel, M., Dankert, J., Stuart, G., & Currie, J. (1999). Facilitation and inhibition arising from the exogenous orienting of covert attention depends on the temporal properties of spatial cues and targets. Neuropsychologia, 37, 731–744.Google Scholar
  23. Maylor, E. A. (1985). Facilitatory and inhibitory components of orienting in visual space. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.), Attention and Performance XI (pp. 189–204). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Maylor, E. A., & Hockey, G. R. J. (1985). Inhibitory component of externally controlled covert orienting in visual space. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 777–787.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Maylor, E. A., & Hockey, G. R. J. (1987). Effects of repetition on the facilitatory and inhibitory components of orienting in visual space. Neuropsychologia, 25, 41–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller, J. (1988). Discrete and continuous models of human information processing: Theoretical distinctions and empirical results. Acta Psychologica, 67, 191–257.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Mondor, T. A., Breau, L. M., & Milliken, B. (1998). Inhibitory processes in auditory selective attention: Evidence of location-based and frequency-based inhibition of return. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 296–302.Google Scholar
  29. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma & D. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and Performance X (pp. 531–556). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Posner, M. I., Rafal, R. D., Choate, S. L., & Vaughan, J. (1985). Inhibition of return: Neural basis and function. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2, 211–228.Google Scholar
  32. Possamaï, C. A. (1986). Relationship between inhibition and facilitation following a visual cue. Acta Psychologica, 61, 243–258.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Possamaï, C. A. (1991). A responding hand effect in a simple-RT precueing experiment: Evidence for a late locus of facilitation. Acta Psychologica, 77, 47–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Possamaï, C. A. (1992). The effect of non-informative cueing signal in a three-choice reaction-time task. Psychological Research, 54, 72–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Pratt, J., O'Donnell, C., & Morgan, A. (2000). The role of the fixation location in inhibition of return. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 186–195.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Pratt, J., Hillis, J., & Gold, J. M. (2001). The effect of the physical characteristics of cues and targets on facilitation and inhibition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 489–495.Google Scholar
  37. Rafal, R. D., Posner, M. I., Friedman, J. H., Inhoff, A. W., & Bernstein, E. (1988). Orienting of visual attention in progressive supranuclear palsy. Brain, 111, 267–280.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Rafal, R. D., Calabresi, P. A., Brennan, C. W., & Sciolto, T. K. (1989). Saccade preparation inhibits reorienting to recently attended locations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 673–685PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Riggio, L., Bello, A., & Umiltà, C. (1998). Inhibitory and facilitatory effects of cue onset and offset. Psychological Research, 61, 107–118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Riggio, L., Scaramuzza, E., & Umiltà, C. (2000). Modulation of inhibition of return by type and number of dynamic changes of the cue. Psychological Research, 64, 56–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Rizzolatti, G., Buchtel, H. A., Camarda, R., & Scandolara, C. (1980). Neurons with complex visual properties in the superior colliculus of macaque monkey. Experimental Brain Research, 38, 37–42.Google Scholar
  42. Sanders, A. F. (1990). Issues and trends in the debate on discrete vs. continuous processing of information. Acta Psychologica, 74, 123–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sapir, A., Soroker, N., Berger, A., & Henik, A. (1999). Inhibition of return in spatial attention: Direct evidence for collicular generation. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 1053–1054.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Schneider, W. (1988). Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 20, 206–217.Google Scholar
  45. Simion, F., Valenza, E., Umiltà, C., & Dalla Barba, B. (1995). Inhibition of return in newborns is temporo-nasal asymmetrical. Infant Behavior and Development, 18, 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donder's method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tassinari, G., & Berlucchi, G. (1993). Sensory and attentional components of slowing of manual reaction time to non-fixated visual targets by ipsilateral primes. Vision Research, 33, 1525–1534.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Tassinari, G., Aglioti, S., Chelazzi, L., Marzi, C. A., & Berlucchi, G. (1987). Distribution in the visual field of voluntarily allocated attention of the inhibitory aftereffects of covert orienting. Neuropsychologia, 25, 55–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Tassinari, G., Aglioti, S., Chelazzi, L., Peru, A., & Berlucchi, G. (1994). Do peripheral non-informative cues induce early facilitation of target detection? Vision Research, 34,179–189.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Taylor, T. L., & Klein, R. M. (1998). Inhibition of return to color: A replication and nonextension of Law, Pratt, and Abrams (1995). Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 1452–1456.Google Scholar
  51. Tipper, S. P., Driver, J., & Weaver, B. (1991). Object-centered inhibition of return of visual attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 289–298.Google Scholar
  52. Tipper, S. P., Weaver, B., Jerreat, L. M., & Burak, A. L. (1994). Object-based and environment-based inhibition of return of visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 478–499.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Tipper, S. P., Reuter-Lorenz, P. A., Rafal, R., Starrveldt, Y., Ro, T., Egly, R., Danzinger, S., & Weaver, B. (1997). Object-based facilitation and inhibition from visual orienting in the human split-brain. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1522–1532.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Tipper, S. P., Jordan, H., & Weaver, B. (1999). Scene-based and object-centered inhibition of return: Evidence for dual orienting mechanisms. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 50–60.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Neuroscienze, Sezione di FisiologiaUniversità di ParmaParmaItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Psicologia GeneraleUniversità di PadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations