Inhibition of Return without Attentional Capture in the Traditional Spatial Cueing Paradigm
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.105.14573Keywords:
Attentional capture, Facilitation effect, Inhibition of return, SOAAbstract
Numerous studies using the spatial cueing paradigm have revealed various characteristics of attentional capture and inhibition of return (IOR). In my previous study, attentional capture was not observed while IOR was observed. Although this is evidence supporting the independence of attentional capture and IOR, I considered the possibility of a problem with the SOA conditions. In the previous study, the SOA condition for observing attentional capture was 150 msec, while some other previous studies used the 100 msec SOA condition. This slight difference may be the reason why attentional capture was not observed. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a difference between RTs in the 150 msec SOA condition and RTs in the 100 msec SOA condition. Based on previous research, it was expected that attentional functioning would not change significantly when SOA was changed from 100 msec to 150 msec. The results showed that there was no difference between RTs in the 150 msec SOA and the 100 msec SOA conditions. Moreover, robust IORs were observed in the 100 msec SOA with the absence of attentional capture. The results of this study provided additional evidence for the idea presented that attentional capture and IOR are caused by different mechanisms.
References
Posner, M.I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of attention. In H. Bouma, & D. Bowhuis (Eds.), Attention and Performance X (pp.531-556). Erlbaum.
Posner, M.I., Rafal, R.D., Choate, L., & Vaughan, J. (1985). Inhibition of return: Neural basis and function. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2, 211-228. doi:10.1080/02643298508252866
Klein, R.M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 138-147. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01452-2
Matsuda, Y. (2022). Two Dissociable Functions of Spatial Attention, Facilitation Effect and Inhibition of Return. Current Overview on Science and Technology Research Vol. 4 (pp. 135–157). B P International. doi:10.9734/bpi/costr/v4/3880A
Posner, M.I. (1978). Chronometric explorations of mind. Erlbaum.
Posner, M.I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3-25. doi:10.1080/00335558008248231 6 Matsuda, Y. (2023). Inhibition of Return without Attentional Capture in the Traditional Spatial Cueing Paradigm. Advances in Social Sciences
Matsuda, Y. & Iwasaki, S. (2012). Cue Duration Affects Attentional Capture without Modulating Inhibition of Return. Psychology, 3, 899-905. doi: 10.4236/psych.2012.310135.
Riggio, L., Bello, A., & Umiltà, C. (1998). Inhibitory and facilitatory effects of cue onset and offset. Psychological research, 61(2), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004260050017
Maruff, P., Yucel, M., Danckert, 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. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(98)00067-0
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. doi:10.3758/BF03196183
Castel, A. D., Chasteen, A. L., Scialfa, C. T., & Pratt, J. (2003). Adult age differences in the time course of inhibition of return. The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences, 58(5), P256–P259. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/58.5.p256
Castel, A. D., Pratt, J., Chasteen, A. L., & Scialfa, C. T. (2005). Examining task difficulty and the time course of inhibition of return: detecting perceptually degraded targets. Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale, 59(2), 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087464
Klein, R. M., Castel, A. D., & Pratt, J. (2006). The effects of memory load on the time course of inhibition of return. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 13(2), 294–299. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193846
Wright, R.D., & Richard, C.M. (2003). Sensory mediation of stimu- lus-driven attentional capture in multiple-cue displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 925-938. doi:10.3758/BF03194824
Tipper, C., & Kingstone, A. (2005). Is inhibition of return a reflexive effect? Cognition, 97(3), B55–B62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.02.003
McAuliffe, J., & Pratt, J. (2005). The role of temporal and spatial fac- tors in the covert orienting of visual attention tasks. Psychological Research, 69, 285-291. doi:10.1007/s00426-004-0179-4
Collie, A., Maruff, P., Yucel, M., Danckert, J., & Currie, J. (2000). Spatiotemporal distribution of facilitation and inhibition of return arising from the reflexive orienting of covert attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1733-1745. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.26.6.1733
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(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(94)90330-1
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Yukihisa Matsuda
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
