Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 65, Issue 8, pp 1222–1230 | Cite as

Inhibition of return to occluded objects

  • Do-Joon Yi
  • Min-Shik Kim
  • Marvin M. Chun


Since many visual objects are vulnerable to occlusion, an active process that tracks objects behind occluders confers considerable ecological validity to the visual system. We studied this possibility by testing whether inhibition of return can be observed with occluded objects. In our experiments, two moving objects disappeared or reappeared behind occluders while a cue and a probe were presented. Contrary to the results of a previous study (Tipper, Weaver, Jerreat, & Burak, 1994), responses were consistently delayed for the cued object that was occluded when it was cued (Experiment 1), when it was probed (Experiment 2), or both (Experiment 3). These results suggest that attention can select occluded objects that are out of view. Our findings are in line with prior studies that have demonstrated similar perceptual/attentional effects for occluded objects, as well as for visible objects.


Uncued Location Occlude Object Stimulus Onset Asyn Attentional Momentum Uncued Condition 
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.


  1. Abrams, R. A., &Dobkin, R. S. (1994). Inhibition of return: Effects of attentional cuing on eye movement latencies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox.Spatial Vision,10, 433–436.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davis, G., &Driver, J. (1994). Parallel detection of Kanizsa subjective figures in the human visual system.Nature,371, 791–793.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis, G., &Driver, J. (1998). Kanizsa subjective figures can act as occluding surfaces at parallel stages of visual search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Egly, R., Driver, J., &Rafal, R. D. (1994). Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113, 501–517.Google Scholar
  6. Gibson, B. S., &Egeth, H. (1994). Inhibition of return to object-based and environment-based locations.Perception & Psychophysics,55, 323–339.Google Scholar
  7. Haimson, C., &Behrmann, M. (2001). Cued visual attention does not distinguish between occluded and occluding objects.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 496–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. He, Z. I., &Nakayama, K. (1992). Surfaces versus features in visual search.Nature,359, 231–233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Klein, R. M. (1988). Inhibitory tagging system facilitates visual search.Nature,334, 430–431.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,4, 138–147.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Klein, R. M., &MacInnes, W. J. (1999). Inhibition of return is a foraging facilitator in visual search.Psychological Science,10, 346–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maylor, E. (1985). Facilitatory and inhibitory components of orienting in visual space. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.),Attention and performance XI (pp. 189–203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Moore, C. M., Yantis, S., &Vaughan, B. (1998). Object-based visual selection: Evidence from perceptual completion.Psychological Science,9, 104–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Pratt, J., Spalek, T. M., &Bradshaw, F. (1999). The time to detect targets at inhibited and noninhibited locations: Preliminary evidence for attentional momentum.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 730–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 & Performance,15, 673–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Scholl, B. J., &Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1999). Tracking multiple items through occlusion: Clues to visual objecthood.Cognitive Psychology,38, 259–290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Snyder, J. J., Schmidt, W. C., &Kingstone.A. (2001). Attentional momentum does not underlie the inhibition of return effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 1420–1432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tipper, S. P., Driver, J., &Weaver, B. (1991). Short report: Objectcentered inhibition of return of visual attention.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,43A, 289–298.Google Scholar
  20. 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 & Performance,20, 478–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Yantis, S. (1995). Perceived continuity of occluded visual objects.Psychological Science,6, 182–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yantis, S., &Nakama, T. (1998). Visual interactions in the path of apparent motion.Nature Neuroscience,1, 508–512.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyYale UniversityNew Haven
  2. 2.Yonsei UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations