99:
cues are under the person's control and are seen as "top-down". A 2007 experiment examined the way in which bottom-up and top-down processes affect attention during IOR. Electrodes were placed in both the parietal and frontal cortices as monkeys took part in a visual search task. In the task, the salience of the target object was manipulated. In the "pop out" condition, the target stimulus was different from the distractors in both color and shape, whereas in the "search" condition many of the distractors were the same as the target either in color or shape. Researchers found that top-down signals, coming from endogenous cues, are processed predominately in the frontal cortex and offer longer lasting effects, while exogenous bottom-up cues have faster occurring effects that appear in the lateral intraparietal area.
70:
trial, a target (a bright filled square) occurs at the center of box at either 0, 50, 100, 200, 300, or 500 ms after the initial brightening. The target is usually in the center box(0.6), but it may also occur on either side(0.1 probability on each side). Catch trials in which no target is presented occur with probability of 0.2. Participants had to respond to the target as quickly as possible by pressing a specified key. Participants' performance in RT on the cued side increased the first 150 ms; however, they then experienced inhibition of target RT on the cued side compared to the uncued side after 300 ms.
167:
126:
presented in the visual periphery when the eyes are fixed. However, it has been suggested that activation of the midbrain oculomotor pathways might trigger IOR even under endogenous cueing. This conclusion has been questioned by researchers who have found in their studies that endogenous saccade activation is not efficient to produce IOR. Others believe that IOR is caused by both a delay in activation of attentional and motor processes.
26:) refers to an orientation mechanism that briefly enhances (for approximately 100–300 milliseconds (ms)) the speed and accuracy with which an object is detected after the object is attended, but then impairs detection speed and accuracy (for approximately 500–3000 milliseconds). IOR is usually measured with a cue-response paradigm, in which a person presses a button when they detect a target
62:
149:
Researchers (including Klein himself) initially challenged the foraging facilitator proposal. Pratt and Abrams suggested that IOR was not a foraging assistant because inhibition only occurred at the most recently attended stimulus. Earlier, Klein and Taylor found that it could not be concluded that
98:
Both cues play an equally important role of directing attention in
Inhibition of Return, however the way in which they do so differs on a neurological level as well. Exogenous cues are automatic and are therefore considered to fall under the "bottom-up" approach regarding attention, while endogenous
90:
One form of cue that can be implemented in an inhibition of return task are exogenous cues. Exogenous cues are stimuli that are produced in the environment surrounding. Because one's attention is shifted to the stimulus without much thought or effort, these cues are seen as a form of reflex that the
145:
Klein hypothesized that in a parallel visual search, the difference between RTs at probe targets and empty locations should be less than in a serial visual search. He suggested that this occurs because in serial searches, "inhibitory tags" are left at each location that has been attended to. Thus,
94:
The cue type that directly contrast exogenous cues in many way is the endogenous cue. While exogenous cues are solely what stimuli are presented in one's surrounding environment, endogenous cues are based on the internal goals, beliefs, desires, and interpretation of the person. While an outside
69:
In the experiment that demonstrated the paradigm, participants were instructed to fixate on a center box that was flanked with a box on its right and left sides. Each trial began with the brightening of the outline of one of the peripheral boxes that was randomly selected for 150 ms. During the
125:
An early report suggested that IOR involves the midbrain superior colliculus. Support for this suggestion comes from work with a patient who suffered injury to one of the superior colliculi and experiments with the archer fish. Moreover, IOR is commonly triggered by an exogenous sensory signal
121:
An alternative explanation of IOR is that IOR occurs after attention has been disengaged from the cued stimulus, resulting in a delayed response back to that cued stimulus. This occurs because it inhibits an individual from reorienting back to a stimulus they previously attended to.
38:. Inhibition of return results from oculomotor activation, regardless of whether it was produced by exogenous signals or endogenously. Although IOR occurs for both visual and auditory stimuli, IOR is greater for visual stimuli, and is studied more often than auditory stimuli.
150:
attention was inhibited in IOR because at that time, inhibition had not been examined utilizing non-spatial discrimination tasks. Additionally, questions arose after it had been difficult to replicate Klein's findings, however, similar finding were reported eventually.
58:), but then after a period of around 300 ms, response times to a previously cued location were longer than to uncued locations. Specifically, IOR was described as "an inhibitory effect produced by a peripheral (or exogenous) cue or target."
81:
proposes that there are two types of visual searches: parallel searches and serial searches. According to
Treisman and Gelade, attention is only required for serial searches. IOR is a mechanism that is specific for serial searches.
91:
person has low control over. Due to this cue's automatic nature and lack of effort, it uses very few of our attentive resources. This also causes our attention shift to be quick for exogenous cues than for endogenous cues
677:
Chica, A.; Klein, R.; Rafal, R.; Hopfinger, J. (2010). "Endogenous saccade preparation does not produce inhibiton of return: Failure to replicate Rafal, Calabresi, Brennan & Sciolto (1989)".
360:
Jonides, J. (1981). Voluntary vs. automatic control over the mind’s eye’s movement. In J. B. Long, & A. D. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 187–203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
153:
Although researchers had proposed these challenges initially, more recent empirical studies have not only replicated Klein's findings, but have also rebutted the challenges posed initially.
95:
stimulus may be present, such as a stop sign, it is the individuals interpretations and knowledge of the sign that is the endogenous cue causing them to apply pressure to their brakes.
146:
IOR is a mechanism that allows a person not to re-search in previously searched visual fields as a function of "inhibitory tags". This is known as the foraging facilitator proposal.
470:
Buschman, Timothy J.; Miller, Earl K. (2007-03-30). "Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up
Control of Attention in the Prefrontal and Posterior Parietal Cortices".
246:
Rafal, Robert; Calabresi, Peter; Brennan, Cameron; Sciolto, Toni (1989). "Saccade preparation inhibits reorienting to recently attended locations".
601:
Sapir, A; Soroker, N; Berger, A; Henik, A (1999). "Inhibition of return in spatial attention: Direct evidence for collicular generation".
177:
777:
725:
795:
54:(RT) to detect objects appearing in previously cued locations were initially faster to validly cued location (known as the
117:
inhibition may occur because the efficiency in some part of the pathway from the cued location is reduced by the cuing.
203:
30:
following the presentation of a cue that indicates the location in which the target will appear. The cue can be
47:
574:
Posner, M. I; Rafal, R. D; Choate, L; Vaughn, J. (1995). "Inhibition of return: Neural basis and function".
142:
by preventing attention from returning to already-attended objects, providing an evolutionary advantage.
114:
inhibition could result from moving attention away from a cued stimulus back to the fixation point, and
78:
484:
260:
291:
Reuter-Lorenz, P.; Jha, A.; Rosenquist, J.N. (1996). "What is inhibited in inhibition of return".
134:
It has been suggested that IOR promotes exploration of new, previously unattended objects during
479:
255:
713:
741:
Pratt, J.; Abrams, R. (1995). "Inhibition of Return to
Successively Cued Spatial Locations".
55:
27:
8:
810:
404:
371:
51:
541:
166:
773:
721:
694:
659:
618:
553:
545:
505:
497:
452:
444:
409:
391:
343:
339:
308:
273:
376:
Experimental Brain
Research. Experimentelle Hirnforschung. Experimentation Cerebrale
77:
and Gary Gelade's theory of visual search was expounded. This theory, known as the
750:
686:
649:
610:
583:
537:
489:
436:
427:
Theeuwes, J. (1994-01-01). "Endogenous and exogenous control of visual selection".
399:
383:
335:
300:
265:
754:
65:
Example diagram of the process used in Posner'so inhibition of return experiment
304:
269:
61:
587:
387:
326:
Treisman, A.; Gelade, G. (1980). "A feature-integration theory of attention".
804:
549:
501:
448:
395:
135:
74:
493:
698:
663:
622:
557:
509:
413:
228:
456:
347:
312:
277:
372:"The time course of exogenous and endogenous control of covert attention"
654:
637:
35:
690:
227:
Posner, M.I.; Cohen, Y. (1984). "Components of visual orienting". In
50:
and Yoav Cohen, who discovered that, contrary to their expectations,
31:
796:
Demonstration and lesson about
Inhibition Of Return using PsyToolkit
743:
Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
679:
Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
440:
139:
614:
768:
Dagenbach, Dale (1994). Dagenbach, Dale; Carr, Thomas H. (eds.).
636:
Gabay, S; Leibovich, T; Ben-Simon, A; Henik, A; Segev, R (2013).
772:(6th (illustrated) ed.). Academic Press. pp. 113–150.
370:
Hickey, Clayton; van Zoest, Wieske; Theeuwes, Jan (2016-10-15).
107:
Posner and Cohen proposed three explanations for inhibition:
635:
245:
290:
233:
Attention and performance X: Control of language processes
111:
inhibition results from having two alternative positions,
676:
770:
Inhibitory
Processes in Attention, Memory, and Language
600:
573:
369:
528:
Klein, R.M. (1 April 2000). "Inhibition of return".
802:
711:
469:
325:
222:
220:
188:Please help adding a more precise page range.
523:
521:
519:
740:
712:Johnson, Addie; Proctor, Robert W. (2004).
239:
226:
235:. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 531–56.
217:
129:
767:
653:
638:"Inhibition of return in the archer fish"
516:
483:
403:
259:
204:Learn how and when to remove this message
426:
60:
720:. Sage Publications. pp. 127–162.
73:In order to explain the IOR mechanism,
803:
714:"Chapter 5: Attention and inhibition"
527:
160:
46:IOR was first described in depth by
174:This article cites its sources but
13:
293:Journal of Experimental Psychology
248:Journal of Experimental Psychology
14:
822:
789:
165:
85:
761:
734:
705:
670:
629:
594:
567:
718:Attention: Theory and Practice
463:
420:
363:
354:
319:
284:
41:
1:
542:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01452-2
156:
530:Trends in Cognitive Sciences
340:10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5
7:
755:10.1037/0096-1523.21.6.1343
10:
827:
305:10.1037/0096-1523.22.2.367
270:10.1037/0096-1523.15.4.673
79:feature integration theory
588:10.1080/02643298508252866
576:Cognitive Neuropsychology
563:(URL also gives abstract)
388:10.1007/s00221-009-2094-9
102:
494:10.1126/science.1138071
231:; Bouwhuis, D. (eds.).
130:Functional significance
66:
642:Nature Communications
64:
16:Cue-response paradigm
328:Cognitive Psychology
180:ranges are too broad
34:(or peripheral), or
20:Inhibition of return
603:Nature Neuroscience
478:(5820): 1860–1862.
655:10.1038/ncomms2644
67:
779:978-0-12-200410-0
727:978-0-7619-2761-7
609:(12): 1053–1054.
214:
213:
206:
818:
784:
783:
765:
759:
758:
749:(6): 1343–1353.
738:
732:
731:
709:
703:
702:
691:10.1037/a0019951
685:(5): 1193–1206.
674:
668:
667:
657:
633:
627:
626:
598:
592:
591:
571:
565:
564:
561:
525:
514:
513:
487:
467:
461:
460:
424:
418:
417:
407:
367:
361:
358:
352:
351:
323:
317:
316:
288:
282:
281:
263:
243:
237:
236:
224:
209:
202:
198:
195:
189:
169:
161:
826:
825:
821:
820:
819:
817:
816:
815:
801:
800:
792:
787:
780:
766:
762:
739:
735:
728:
710:
706:
675:
671:
634:
630:
599:
595:
572:
568:
562:
526:
517:
485:10.1.1.148.8199
468:
464:
441:10.1068/p230429
425:
421:
368:
364:
359:
355:
324:
320:
289:
285:
261:10.1.1.294.1436
244:
240:
225:
218:
210:
199:
193:
190:
187:
178:page references
170:
159:
132:
105:
88:
56:validity effect
44:
17:
12:
11:
5:
824:
814:
813:
799:
798:
791:
790:External links
788:
786:
785:
778:
760:
733:
726:
704:
669:
628:
593:
582:(3): 211–228.
566:
536:(4): 138–147.
515:
462:
435:(4): 429–440.
419:
382:(4): 789–796.
362:
353:
318:
299:(2): 367–378.
283:
254:(4): 673–685.
238:
215:
212:
211:
173:
171:
164:
158:
155:
131:
128:
119:
118:
115:
112:
104:
101:
87:
84:
52:reaction times
48:Michael Posner
43:
40:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
823:
812:
809:
808:
806:
797:
794:
793:
781:
775:
771:
764:
756:
752:
748:
744:
737:
729:
723:
719:
715:
708:
700:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
673:
665:
661:
656:
651:
647:
643:
639:
632:
624:
620:
616:
615:10.1038/15977
612:
608:
604:
597:
589:
585:
581:
577:
570:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
524:
522:
520:
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
486:
481:
477:
473:
466:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
423:
415:
411:
406:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
366:
357:
349:
345:
341:
337:
334:(1): 97–136.
333:
329:
322:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
287:
279:
275:
271:
267:
262:
257:
253:
249:
242:
234:
230:
223:
221:
216:
208:
205:
197:
185:
181:
179:
172:
168:
163:
162:
154:
151:
147:
143:
141:
137:
136:visual search
127:
123:
116:
113:
110:
109:
108:
100:
96:
92:
86:Types of cues
83:
80:
76:
75:Anne Treisman
71:
63:
59:
57:
53:
49:
39:
37:
33:
29:
25:
21:
769:
763:
746:
742:
736:
717:
707:
682:
678:
672:
645:
641:
631:
606:
602:
596:
579:
575:
569:
533:
529:
475:
471:
465:
432:
428:
422:
379:
375:
365:
356:
331:
327:
321:
296:
292:
286:
251:
247:
241:
232:
200:
194:January 2014
191:
183:
175:
152:
148:
144:
133:
124:
120:
106:
97:
93:
89:
72:
68:
45:
23:
19:
18:
42:Description
429:Perception
157:References
36:endogenous
811:Attention
550:1364-6613
502:0036-8075
480:CiteSeerX
449:0301-0066
396:0014-4819
256:CiteSeerX
229:Bouma, H.
184:incorrect
32:exogenous
805:Category
699:20731522
664:23552072
648:: 1657.
623:10570480
558:10740278
510:17395832
414:19940982
140:foraging
28:stimulus
472:Science
457:7991343
405:2839488
348:7351125
313:8934850
278:2531204
776:
724:
697:
662:
621:
556:
548:
508:
500:
482:
455:
447:
412:
402:
394:
346:
311:
276:
258:
103:Causes
774:ISBN
722:ISBN
695:PMID
660:PMID
619:PMID
554:PMID
546:ISSN
506:PMID
498:ISSN
453:PMID
445:ISSN
410:PMID
392:ISSN
344:PMID
309:PMID
274:PMID
176:its
751:doi
687:doi
650:doi
611:doi
584:doi
538:doi
490:doi
476:315
437:doi
400:PMC
384:doi
380:201
336:doi
301:doi
266:doi
182:or
138:or
24:IOR
807::
747:21
745:.
716:.
693:.
683:36
681:.
658:.
644:.
640:.
617:.
605:.
578:.
552:.
544:.
532:.
518:^
504:.
496:.
488:.
474:.
451:.
443:.
433:23
431:.
408:.
398:.
390:.
378:.
374:.
342:.
332:12
330:.
307:.
297:22
295:.
272:.
264:.
252:15
250:.
219:^
782:.
757:.
753::
730:.
701:.
689::
666:.
652::
646:4
625:.
613::
607:2
590:.
586::
580:2
560:.
540::
534:4
512:.
492::
459:.
439::
416:.
386::
350:.
338::
315:.
303::
280:.
268::
207:)
201:(
196:)
192:(
186:.
22:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
