Limits...
Further evidence against a momentum explanation for IOR.

Harris JW, Cowper-Smith CD, Klein RM, Westwood DA - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: This observation can be explained as a result of inhibition at the attended location (IOR), or as facilitation at the location opposite the cue (opposite facilitation effect or OFE).Past research has demonstrated that IOR is observed reliably, whereas OFE is observed only occasionally.The present series of four experiments allows us to determine whether or not OFE can be explained by eye movements as suggested by previous authors.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Division of Kinesiology, School of Health and Human Performance, Faculty of Health Professions, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.

ABSTRACT
Reaction times to targets presented in the same location as a preceding cue are greater than those to targets presented opposite the cued location. This observation can be explained as a result of inhibition at the attended location (IOR), or as facilitation at the location opposite the cue (opposite facilitation effect or OFE). Past research has demonstrated that IOR is observed reliably, whereas OFE is observed only occasionally. The present series of four experiments allows us to determine whether or not OFE can be explained by eye movements as suggested by previous authors. Participants' eye movements were monitored as they were presented with an array of four placeholders aligned with the four cardinal axes. Exogenous cues and targets were presented successively. Participants (N=37) completed either: i.) cue-manual and cue-saccade experiments, ignoring the cue and then responding with a keypress or saccade, respectively, or ii.) manual-manual and saccade-saccade experiments, responding to both the cue and the target with a keypress or saccade respectively. Results demonstrated a reliable IOR effect in each of the four experiments (reaction time greater for same versus adjacent and opposite cue-target trials). None of the four experiments demonstrated evidence of an OFE (reaction times were not significantly lower for opposite versus adjacent cue-target trials). These results are inconsistent with a momentum-based account of cue-target task performance, and furthermore suggest that the OFE cannot be attributed to occasional eye movements to the cue and/or target in previous studies.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Saccadic reaction time (a,b) and manual reaction time (c,d) as a function of cue condition (cue-target offset).Data are shown for Experiment 1 (a), Experiment 2 (b), Experiment 3 (c) and Experiment 4 (d).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4400106&req=5

pone.0123666.g003: Saccadic reaction time (a,b) and manual reaction time (c,d) as a function of cue condition (cue-target offset).Data are shown for Experiment 1 (a), Experiment 2 (b), Experiment 3 (c) and Experiment 4 (d).

Mentions: There was a significant main effect of cue-target offset (F(2,36) = 32.8, MSE = 963, p<0.001): mean RTs for 0, 90 and 180-degree offsets were 225, 188, and 191 ms, respectively. These data are presented in Fig 3a. Pairwise comparisons revealed significantly greater RT in the 0 degree (225 ms) compared to 90 degree offset conditions (188 ms; p<0.001) (IOR = 37 ms), while there was no significant difference in mean response times between the 90 degree (188 ms) and 180 degree cue-target offsets (191 ms; p = 1.0) (OFE = -3 ms). The interaction between target location and cue-target offset was not significant (F (3.82, 68.7) = 0.864, MSE = 1668, p = 0.486).


Further evidence against a momentum explanation for IOR.

Harris JW, Cowper-Smith CD, Klein RM, Westwood DA - PLoS ONE (2015)

Saccadic reaction time (a,b) and manual reaction time (c,d) as a function of cue condition (cue-target offset).Data are shown for Experiment 1 (a), Experiment 2 (b), Experiment 3 (c) and Experiment 4 (d).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4400106&req=5

pone.0123666.g003: Saccadic reaction time (a,b) and manual reaction time (c,d) as a function of cue condition (cue-target offset).Data are shown for Experiment 1 (a), Experiment 2 (b), Experiment 3 (c) and Experiment 4 (d).
Mentions: There was a significant main effect of cue-target offset (F(2,36) = 32.8, MSE = 963, p<0.001): mean RTs for 0, 90 and 180-degree offsets were 225, 188, and 191 ms, respectively. These data are presented in Fig 3a. Pairwise comparisons revealed significantly greater RT in the 0 degree (225 ms) compared to 90 degree offset conditions (188 ms; p<0.001) (IOR = 37 ms), while there was no significant difference in mean response times between the 90 degree (188 ms) and 180 degree cue-target offsets (191 ms; p = 1.0) (OFE = -3 ms). The interaction between target location and cue-target offset was not significant (F (3.82, 68.7) = 0.864, MSE = 1668, p = 0.486).

Bottom Line: This observation can be explained as a result of inhibition at the attended location (IOR), or as facilitation at the location opposite the cue (opposite facilitation effect or OFE).Past research has demonstrated that IOR is observed reliably, whereas OFE is observed only occasionally.The present series of four experiments allows us to determine whether or not OFE can be explained by eye movements as suggested by previous authors.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Division of Kinesiology, School of Health and Human Performance, Faculty of Health Professions, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.

ABSTRACT
Reaction times to targets presented in the same location as a preceding cue are greater than those to targets presented opposite the cued location. This observation can be explained as a result of inhibition at the attended location (IOR), or as facilitation at the location opposite the cue (opposite facilitation effect or OFE). Past research has demonstrated that IOR is observed reliably, whereas OFE is observed only occasionally. The present series of four experiments allows us to determine whether or not OFE can be explained by eye movements as suggested by previous authors. Participants' eye movements were monitored as they were presented with an array of four placeholders aligned with the four cardinal axes. Exogenous cues and targets were presented successively. Participants (N=37) completed either: i.) cue-manual and cue-saccade experiments, ignoring the cue and then responding with a keypress or saccade, respectively, or ii.) manual-manual and saccade-saccade experiments, responding to both the cue and the target with a keypress or saccade respectively. Results demonstrated a reliable IOR effect in each of the four experiments (reaction time greater for same versus adjacent and opposite cue-target trials). None of the four experiments demonstrated evidence of an OFE (reaction times were not significantly lower for opposite versus adjacent cue-target trials). These results are inconsistent with a momentum-based account of cue-target task performance, and furthermore suggest that the OFE cannot be attributed to occasional eye movements to the cue and/or target in previous studies.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus