Cargando…

Inhibitory and Facilitatory Cueing Effects: Competition between Exogenous and Endogenous Mechanisms

Inhibition of return is characterized by delayed responses to previously attended locations when the cue-target onset asynchrony (CTOA) is long enough. However, when cues are predictive of a target’s location, faster reaction times to cued as compared to uncued targets are normally observed. In this...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lim, Alfred, Eng, Vivian, Osborne, Caitlyn, Janssen, Steve M. J., Satel, Jason
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6802798/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31735841
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vision3030040
_version_ 1783460859402518528
author Lim, Alfred
Eng, Vivian
Osborne, Caitlyn
Janssen, Steve M. J.
Satel, Jason
author_facet Lim, Alfred
Eng, Vivian
Osborne, Caitlyn
Janssen, Steve M. J.
Satel, Jason
author_sort Lim, Alfred
collection PubMed
description Inhibition of return is characterized by delayed responses to previously attended locations when the cue-target onset asynchrony (CTOA) is long enough. However, when cues are predictive of a target’s location, faster reaction times to cued as compared to uncued targets are normally observed. In this series of experiments investigating saccadic reaction times, we manipulated the cue predictability to 25% (counterpredictive), 50% (nonpredictive), and 75% (predictive) to investigate the interaction between predictive endogenous facilitatory (FCEs) and inhibitory cueing effects (ICEs). Overall, larger ICEs were seen in the counterpredictive condition than in the nonpredictive condition, and no ICE was found in the predictive condition. Based on the hypothesized additivity of FCEs and ICEs, we reasoned that the null ICEs observed in the predictive condition are the result of two opposing mechanisms balancing each other out, and the large ICEs observed with counterpredictive cueing can be attributed to the combination of endogenous facilitation at uncued locations with inhibition at cued locations. Our findings suggest that the endogenous activity contributed by cue predictability can reduce the overall inhibition observed when the mechanisms occur at the same location, or enhance behavioral inhibition when the mechanisms occur at opposite locations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6802798
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68027982019-11-14 Inhibitory and Facilitatory Cueing Effects: Competition between Exogenous and Endogenous Mechanisms Lim, Alfred Eng, Vivian Osborne, Caitlyn Janssen, Steve M. J. Satel, Jason Vision (Basel) Article Inhibition of return is characterized by delayed responses to previously attended locations when the cue-target onset asynchrony (CTOA) is long enough. However, when cues are predictive of a target’s location, faster reaction times to cued as compared to uncued targets are normally observed. In this series of experiments investigating saccadic reaction times, we manipulated the cue predictability to 25% (counterpredictive), 50% (nonpredictive), and 75% (predictive) to investigate the interaction between predictive endogenous facilitatory (FCEs) and inhibitory cueing effects (ICEs). Overall, larger ICEs were seen in the counterpredictive condition than in the nonpredictive condition, and no ICE was found in the predictive condition. Based on the hypothesized additivity of FCEs and ICEs, we reasoned that the null ICEs observed in the predictive condition are the result of two opposing mechanisms balancing each other out, and the large ICEs observed with counterpredictive cueing can be attributed to the combination of endogenous facilitation at uncued locations with inhibition at cued locations. Our findings suggest that the endogenous activity contributed by cue predictability can reduce the overall inhibition observed when the mechanisms occur at the same location, or enhance behavioral inhibition when the mechanisms occur at opposite locations. MDPI 2019-08-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6802798/ /pubmed/31735841 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vision3030040 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Lim, Alfred
Eng, Vivian
Osborne, Caitlyn
Janssen, Steve M. J.
Satel, Jason
Inhibitory and Facilitatory Cueing Effects: Competition between Exogenous and Endogenous Mechanisms
title Inhibitory and Facilitatory Cueing Effects: Competition between Exogenous and Endogenous Mechanisms
title_full Inhibitory and Facilitatory Cueing Effects: Competition between Exogenous and Endogenous Mechanisms
title_fullStr Inhibitory and Facilitatory Cueing Effects: Competition between Exogenous and Endogenous Mechanisms
title_full_unstemmed Inhibitory and Facilitatory Cueing Effects: Competition between Exogenous and Endogenous Mechanisms
title_short Inhibitory and Facilitatory Cueing Effects: Competition between Exogenous and Endogenous Mechanisms
title_sort inhibitory and facilitatory cueing effects: competition between exogenous and endogenous mechanisms
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6802798/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31735841
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vision3030040
work_keys_str_mv AT limalfred inhibitoryandfacilitatorycueingeffectscompetitionbetweenexogenousandendogenousmechanisms
AT engvivian inhibitoryandfacilitatorycueingeffectscompetitionbetweenexogenousandendogenousmechanisms
AT osbornecaitlyn inhibitoryandfacilitatorycueingeffectscompetitionbetweenexogenousandendogenousmechanisms
AT janssenstevemj inhibitoryandfacilitatorycueingeffectscompetitionbetweenexogenousandendogenousmechanisms
AT sateljason inhibitoryandfacilitatorycueingeffectscompetitionbetweenexogenousandendogenousmechanisms