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

Results from all four experiments.IOR = cued minus orthogonal (+/-90°); OFE = orthogonal (+/-90°) minus uncued (see Fig 1).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

pone.0123666.g004: Results from all four experiments.IOR = cued minus orthogonal (+/-90°); OFE = orthogonal (+/-90°) minus uncued (see Fig 1).

Mentions: The results from our 4 experiments are summarized in Fig 4 where IOR and the OFE are plotted separately for each experiment. We will begin by reviewing the findings from the 4 experiments and relating these to the literature and our original hypotheses, starting with Experiment 3 which used the methodology (ignored peripheral cue followed by peripheral target calling for a manual response) that is most common in the literature that has contrasted the inhibition of return with the attentional momentum mechanisms. Here we replicated the pattern reported by Machado & Rafal [7]: significant IOR (10 ms) and non-significant (-1 ms) OFE. Hence, when eye movements are controlled and trials with untoward eye movements are excluded (as in these two studies) there is no evidence for attentional momentum in a cue-target paradigm with manual responses.


Further evidence against a momentum explanation for IOR.

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

Results from all four experiments.IOR = cued minus orthogonal (+/-90°); OFE = orthogonal (+/-90°) minus uncued (see Fig 1).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

pone.0123666.g004: Results from all four experiments.IOR = cued minus orthogonal (+/-90°); OFE = orthogonal (+/-90°) minus uncued (see Fig 1).
Mentions: The results from our 4 experiments are summarized in Fig 4 where IOR and the OFE are plotted separately for each experiment. We will begin by reviewing the findings from the 4 experiments and relating these to the literature and our original hypotheses, starting with Experiment 3 which used the methodology (ignored peripheral cue followed by peripheral target calling for a manual response) that is most common in the literature that has contrasted the inhibition of return with the attentional momentum mechanisms. Here we replicated the pattern reported by Machado & Rafal [7]: significant IOR (10 ms) and non-significant (-1 ms) OFE. Hence, when eye movements are controlled and trials with untoward eye movements are excluded (as in these two studies) there is no evidence for attentional momentum in a cue-target paradigm with manual responses.

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