Cargando…

Revisiting the global effect and inhibition of return

Saccades toward previously cued locations have longer latencies than saccades toward other locations, a phenomenon known as inhibition of return (IOR). Watanabe (Exp Brain Res 138:330–342. doi:10.1007/s002210100709, 2001) combined IOR with the global effect (where saccade landing points fall in betw...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: De Vries, Jelmer P., Van der Stigchel, Stefan, Hooge, Ignace T. C., Verstraten, Frans A. J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5025513/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27377069
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4702-9
_version_ 1782453965926957056
author De Vries, Jelmer P.
Van der Stigchel, Stefan
Hooge, Ignace T. C.
Verstraten, Frans A. J.
author_facet De Vries, Jelmer P.
Van der Stigchel, Stefan
Hooge, Ignace T. C.
Verstraten, Frans A. J.
author_sort De Vries, Jelmer P.
collection PubMed
description Saccades toward previously cued locations have longer latencies than saccades toward other locations, a phenomenon known as inhibition of return (IOR). Watanabe (Exp Brain Res 138:330–342. doi:10.1007/s002210100709, 2001) combined IOR with the global effect (where saccade landing points fall in between neighboring objects) to investigate whether IOR can also have a spatial component. When one of two neighboring targets was cued, there was a clear bias away from the cued location. In a condition where both targets were cued, it appeared that the global effect magnitude was similar to the condition without any cues. However, as the latencies in the double cue condition were shorter compared to the no cue condition, it is still an open question whether these results are representative for IOR. Considering the double cue condition can provide valuable insight into the interaction of the mechanisms underlying the two phenomena, here, we revisit this condition in an adapted paradigm. Our paradigm does result in longer latencies for the cued locations, and we find that the magnitude of the global effect is reduced significantly. Unexpectedly, this holds even when only including saccades with the same latencies for both conditions. Thus, the increased latencies associated with IOR cannot directly explain the reduction in global effect. The global effect reduction can likely best be seen as either a result of short-term depression of exogenous visual signals or a result of IOR established at the center of gravity of cues. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00221-016-4702-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5025513
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50255132016-09-29 Revisiting the global effect and inhibition of return De Vries, Jelmer P. Van der Stigchel, Stefan Hooge, Ignace T. C. Verstraten, Frans A. J. Exp Brain Res Research Article Saccades toward previously cued locations have longer latencies than saccades toward other locations, a phenomenon known as inhibition of return (IOR). Watanabe (Exp Brain Res 138:330–342. doi:10.1007/s002210100709, 2001) combined IOR with the global effect (where saccade landing points fall in between neighboring objects) to investigate whether IOR can also have a spatial component. When one of two neighboring targets was cued, there was a clear bias away from the cued location. In a condition where both targets were cued, it appeared that the global effect magnitude was similar to the condition without any cues. However, as the latencies in the double cue condition were shorter compared to the no cue condition, it is still an open question whether these results are representative for IOR. Considering the double cue condition can provide valuable insight into the interaction of the mechanisms underlying the two phenomena, here, we revisit this condition in an adapted paradigm. Our paradigm does result in longer latencies for the cued locations, and we find that the magnitude of the global effect is reduced significantly. Unexpectedly, this holds even when only including saccades with the same latencies for both conditions. Thus, the increased latencies associated with IOR cannot directly explain the reduction in global effect. The global effect reduction can likely best be seen as either a result of short-term depression of exogenous visual signals or a result of IOR established at the center of gravity of cues. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00221-016-4702-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2016-07-04 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC5025513/ /pubmed/27377069 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4702-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Research Article
De Vries, Jelmer P.
Van der Stigchel, Stefan
Hooge, Ignace T. C.
Verstraten, Frans A. J.
Revisiting the global effect and inhibition of return
title Revisiting the global effect and inhibition of return
title_full Revisiting the global effect and inhibition of return
title_fullStr Revisiting the global effect and inhibition of return
title_full_unstemmed Revisiting the global effect and inhibition of return
title_short Revisiting the global effect and inhibition of return
title_sort revisiting the global effect and inhibition of return
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5025513/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27377069
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4702-9
work_keys_str_mv AT devriesjelmerp revisitingtheglobaleffectandinhibitionofreturn
AT vanderstigchelstefan revisitingtheglobaleffectandinhibitionofreturn
AT hoogeignacetc revisitingtheglobaleffectandinhibitionofreturn
AT verstratenfransaj revisitingtheglobaleffectandinhibitionofreturn