Cargando…

Dissociating Sensory and Motor Components of Inhibition of Return

Two explanations for inhibition of return (IOR) have been proposed. The first is that IOR reflects inhibition of attentional processing at previously cued locations, resulting in altered sensory analysis. The second is that IOR reflects the inhibition of responses directed towards those previously c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sereno, Anne B., Jeter, Cameron B., Pariyadath, Vani, Briand, Kevin A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: TheScientificWorldJOURNAL 2006
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5917413/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16878271
http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2006.172
_version_ 1783317203920093184
author Sereno, Anne B.
Jeter, Cameron B.
Pariyadath, Vani
Briand, Kevin A.
author_facet Sereno, Anne B.
Jeter, Cameron B.
Pariyadath, Vani
Briand, Kevin A.
author_sort Sereno, Anne B.
collection PubMed
description Two explanations for inhibition of return (IOR) have been proposed. The first is that IOR reflects inhibition of attentional processing at previously cued locations, resulting in altered sensory analysis. The second is that IOR reflects the inhibition of responses directed towards those previously cued locations. We used a variant of a double-saccade paradigm to dissociate these two proposed effects of IOR and attempted to reveal both effects within the context of a single experimental task. Subjects viewed a series of exogenous cues and then made a localization response to subsequent targets with either a target-directed saccade or a pointing response. Results were similar for both response modes. An important finding was that the pattern of IOR depended critically on how subjects reacted to the exogenous cues. Subjects either oriented to the cued locations (via saccades or pointing) prior to responding to the target (Respond), or passively viewed the cues before responding (Ignore). In the Respond condition, IOR was observed at the most recently cued position. Although this could be consistent with an altered sensory interpretation, it would also be consistent with a spatiotopic representation. In the Ignore condition, the sole inhibited location was not the most recently cued position, but the first cued position. This finding is surprising and in conflict with previous work with multiple exogenous cues. The data are discussed in relation to a number of prominent issues in the area of IOR and suggest important new constraints and boundary conditions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5917413
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2006
publisher TheScientificWorldJOURNAL
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59174132018-06-03 Dissociating Sensory and Motor Components of Inhibition of Return Sereno, Anne B. Jeter, Cameron B. Pariyadath, Vani Briand, Kevin A. ScientificWorldJournal Review Article Two explanations for inhibition of return (IOR) have been proposed. The first is that IOR reflects inhibition of attentional processing at previously cued locations, resulting in altered sensory analysis. The second is that IOR reflects the inhibition of responses directed towards those previously cued locations. We used a variant of a double-saccade paradigm to dissociate these two proposed effects of IOR and attempted to reveal both effects within the context of a single experimental task. Subjects viewed a series of exogenous cues and then made a localization response to subsequent targets with either a target-directed saccade or a pointing response. Results were similar for both response modes. An important finding was that the pattern of IOR depended critically on how subjects reacted to the exogenous cues. Subjects either oriented to the cued locations (via saccades or pointing) prior to responding to the target (Respond), or passively viewed the cues before responding (Ignore). In the Respond condition, IOR was observed at the most recently cued position. Although this could be consistent with an altered sensory interpretation, it would also be consistent with a spatiotopic representation. In the Ignore condition, the sole inhibited location was not the most recently cued position, but the first cued position. This finding is surprising and in conflict with previous work with multiple exogenous cues. The data are discussed in relation to a number of prominent issues in the area of IOR and suggest important new constraints and boundary conditions. TheScientificWorldJOURNAL 2006-07-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5917413/ /pubmed/16878271 http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2006.172 Text en Copyright © 2006 Anne B. Sereno et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Sereno, Anne B.
Jeter, Cameron B.
Pariyadath, Vani
Briand, Kevin A.
Dissociating Sensory and Motor Components of Inhibition of Return
title Dissociating Sensory and Motor Components of Inhibition of Return
title_full Dissociating Sensory and Motor Components of Inhibition of Return
title_fullStr Dissociating Sensory and Motor Components of Inhibition of Return
title_full_unstemmed Dissociating Sensory and Motor Components of Inhibition of Return
title_short Dissociating Sensory and Motor Components of Inhibition of Return
title_sort dissociating sensory and motor components of inhibition of return
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5917413/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16878271
http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2006.172
work_keys_str_mv AT serenoanneb dissociatingsensoryandmotorcomponentsofinhibitionofreturn
AT jetercameronb dissociatingsensoryandmotorcomponentsofinhibitionofreturn
AT pariyadathvani dissociatingsensoryandmotorcomponentsofinhibitionofreturn
AT briandkevina dissociatingsensoryandmotorcomponentsofinhibitionofreturn