Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 76, Issue 8, pp 2249–2255 | Cite as

Object-centered orienting and IOR

  • Jan TheeuwesEmail author
  • Sebastiaan Mathôt
  • Jonathan Grainger


Three recent studies reported retinotopic (eye-centered) and object-centered attentional facilitation following exogenous cuing in dynamic displays. The present study replicates this finding and shows, under the very same experimental conditions, inhibition of return (IOR) in both retinotopic and object-centered reference frames. Unlike in previous findings, we show that when a single object is present in the display, IOR is bound to both retinotopic and object-centered locations, defined as a specific location within the boundaries of a single object.


Attention Attention: object-based Inhibition of return 



We would like to thanks Bryan Burnham, Brad Gibson, and an anonymous reviewer for their very helpful comments to an earlier version of this manuscript.


  1. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boi, M., Vergeer, M., Ogmen, H., & Herzog, M. H. (2011). Nonretinotopic exogenous attention. Current Biology, 21(20), 1732–1737.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boon, P., Theeuwes, J., & Belopolsky, A. (2014). Updating visual-spatial working memory during object movement. Vision Research, 94, 51–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burnham, B. R. (2007). Displaywide visual features associated with a search display ’ s appearance can mediate attentional capture. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(3), 392–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 1030–1044.Google Scholar
  6. Gibson, B. S., & Egeth, H. (1994). Inhibition of return to object-based and environment-based locations. Perception & Psychophysics, 55, 323–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gibson, B. S., & Kelsey, E. M. (1998). Stimulus-driven attentional capture is contingent on attentional set for displaywide visual features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 699–706.Google Scholar
  8. Godijn, R., & Theeuwes, J. (2004). The relationship between inhibition of return and saccade trajectory deviations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 538–554.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Handy, T. C., Grafton, S. T., Shroff, V. N. M., Ketay, S., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (2003). Graspable objects grasp attention when the potential for action is recognized. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 421–427.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Humphreys, G. W., & Riddoch, M. J. (2001). Detection by action: neuropsychological evidence for action-defined templates in search. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 84–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Klein, R. M. (1988). Inhibitory tagging system facilitates visual search. Nature, 334, 430–431.Google Scholar
  12. Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 138–147.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lin, Z. (2013). Object-centered representations support flexible exogenous visual attention across translation and reflection. Cognition, 129(2), 221–231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mathôt, S., & Theeuwes, J. (2010). Gradual Remapping Results in Early Retinotopic and late Spatiotopic Inhibition of Return. Psychological Science, 21, 1793–1798.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mathôt, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). OpenSesame: An Open-source, Graphical Experiment Builder for the Social Sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mulckhuyse, M., Talsma, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2007). Grabbing attention without knowing: Automatic capture of attention by subliminal spatial cues. Visual Cognition, 15, 779–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy: Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1–2), 8–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance X: Control of language processes (pp. 531–556). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Pratt, J., Kingstone, A., & Khoe, W. (1997). Inhibition of return in location- and identity-based choice decision tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 964–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pratt, J., Sekuler, A. B., & McAuliffe, J. (2001). The role of attentional set on attentional cueing and inhibition of return. Visual Cognition, 8, 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods of dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510–532.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reppa, I., Schmidt, W. C., & Leek, E. C. (2012). Successes and failures in producing attentional object-based cueing effects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schreij, D., Owens, C., & Theeuwes, J. (2008). Abrupt onsets capture attention independent of top-down control settings. Perception & Psychophysics, 70(2), 208–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schreij, D., Theeuwes, J., & Olivers, C. N. L. (2010). Irrelevant onsets cause inhibition of return regardless of attentional set. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 72, 1725–1729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schreij, D., Los, S.A., Theeuwes, J., Enns, J.T., & Olivers, C.N.L. (2014). The interaction between stimulus-driven and goal driven orienting as revealed by eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 378–390.Google Scholar
  27. Theeuwes, J. (1991). Exogenous and endogenous control of attention: The effect of visual onsets and offsets. Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Theeuwes, J. (1994). Stimulus-driven capture and attentional set: Selective search for color and visual abrupt onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 799–806.Google Scholar
  29. Theeuwes, J. (2010). Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. Acta Psychologica, 123, 77–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Theeuwes, J., & Chen, C. Y. D. (2005). Attentional capture and inhibition (of return): the effect on perceptual sensitivity. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 1305–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Theeuwes, J., & Godijn, R. (2002). Irrelevant singletons capture attention: evidence from inhibition of return. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 764–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Theeuwes, J., Mathôt, S., & Grainger, J. (2013). Exogenous object-centered attention. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 75, 812–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tipper, S. P., Driver, J., & Weaver, B. (1991). Object-centered inhibition of return of visual attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 289–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Tipper, S. P., Jordan, H., & Weaver, B. (1999). Scene-based and object-centered inhibition of return: evidence for dual orienting mechanisms. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(1), 50–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ungerleider, L. G., & Mishkin, M. (1982). Two cortical visual systems. In D. J. Ingle, M. A. Goodale, & R. J. W. Mansfield (Eds.), Analysis of visual behavior (pp. 549–586). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Yantis, S., & Serences, J. (2003). Neural mechanisms of space-based and object based attentional control. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13, 187–193.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Theeuwes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sebastiaan Mathôt
    • 2
  • Jonathan Grainger
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Cognitive PsychologyVrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Aix-Marseille UniversityMarseilleFrance

Personalised recommendations