Cargando…

No evidence for rhythmic sampling in inhibition of return

When exogenously cued, attention reflexively reorients towards the cued position. After a brief dwelling time, attention is released and then persistently inhibited from returning to this position for up to three seconds, a phenomenon coined ’inhibition of return’ (IOR). This inhibitory interpretati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Michel, René, Busch, Niko A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10545570/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37610529
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-023-02745-x
_version_ 1785114697474768896
author Michel, René
Busch, Niko A.
author_facet Michel, René
Busch, Niko A.
author_sort Michel, René
collection PubMed
description When exogenously cued, attention reflexively reorients towards the cued position. After a brief dwelling time, attention is released and then persistently inhibited from returning to this position for up to three seconds, a phenomenon coined ’inhibition of return’ (IOR). This inhibitory interpretation has shaped our understanding of the spatio-temporal dynamics of the attentional spotlight after an exogenous visual cue for more than three decades. However, a recent theory refines this traditional view and predicts that attention rhythmically alternates between possible target locations at a theta frequency, implying occasional returns of attention to the cued position. Unfortunately, previous IOR studies have only probed performance at a few, temporally wide-spread cue-target onset asynchronies (CTOAs) rendering a comparison of these contradictory predictions impossible. We therefore used a temporally fine-grained adaptation of the Posner paradigm with 25 equally and densely spaced CTOAs, which yielded a robust IOR effect in the reaction time difference between valid and invalidly cued trials. We modelled the time course of this effect across CTOAs as a linear or exponential decay (traditional IOR model), sinusoidal rhythm (rhythmic model) and a combination of both (hybrid model). Model comparison by means of goodness-of-fit indices provided strong evidence in favor of traditional IOR models, and against theta-rhythmic attentional sampling contributing to IOR. This finding was supported by an FFT analysis, which also revealed no significant theta rhythm. We therefore conclude that the spatio-temporal dynamics of attention following an exogenous cue cannot be explained by rhythmic attentional sampling. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.3758/s13414-023-02745-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10545570
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105455702023-10-04 No evidence for rhythmic sampling in inhibition of return Michel, René Busch, Niko A. Atten Percept Psychophys Registered Reports and Replications When exogenously cued, attention reflexively reorients towards the cued position. After a brief dwelling time, attention is released and then persistently inhibited from returning to this position for up to three seconds, a phenomenon coined ’inhibition of return’ (IOR). This inhibitory interpretation has shaped our understanding of the spatio-temporal dynamics of the attentional spotlight after an exogenous visual cue for more than three decades. However, a recent theory refines this traditional view and predicts that attention rhythmically alternates between possible target locations at a theta frequency, implying occasional returns of attention to the cued position. Unfortunately, previous IOR studies have only probed performance at a few, temporally wide-spread cue-target onset asynchronies (CTOAs) rendering a comparison of these contradictory predictions impossible. We therefore used a temporally fine-grained adaptation of the Posner paradigm with 25 equally and densely spaced CTOAs, which yielded a robust IOR effect in the reaction time difference between valid and invalidly cued trials. We modelled the time course of this effect across CTOAs as a linear or exponential decay (traditional IOR model), sinusoidal rhythm (rhythmic model) and a combination of both (hybrid model). Model comparison by means of goodness-of-fit indices provided strong evidence in favor of traditional IOR models, and against theta-rhythmic attentional sampling contributing to IOR. This finding was supported by an FFT analysis, which also revealed no significant theta rhythm. We therefore conclude that the spatio-temporal dynamics of attention following an exogenous cue cannot be explained by rhythmic attentional sampling. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.3758/s13414-023-02745-x. Springer US 2023-08-23 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10545570/ /pubmed/37610529 http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-023-02745-x Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Registered Reports and Replications
Michel, René
Busch, Niko A.
No evidence for rhythmic sampling in inhibition of return
title No evidence for rhythmic sampling in inhibition of return
title_full No evidence for rhythmic sampling in inhibition of return
title_fullStr No evidence for rhythmic sampling in inhibition of return
title_full_unstemmed No evidence for rhythmic sampling in inhibition of return
title_short No evidence for rhythmic sampling in inhibition of return
title_sort no evidence for rhythmic sampling in inhibition of return
topic Registered Reports and Replications
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10545570/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37610529
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-023-02745-x
work_keys_str_mv AT michelrene noevidenceforrhythmicsamplingininhibitionofreturn
AT buschnikoa noevidenceforrhythmicsamplingininhibitionofreturn