Spatial biases in inhibition of return

ABSTRACT

Inhibition of return (IOR) describes the phenomenon that reaction times (RT) to a target which appears at a previously cued location are slowed down. Spalek and Hammad ([2004]. Supporting the attentional momentum view of IOR: Is attention biased to go right? Perception & Psychophysics, 66(2), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194874) reported that IOR effects were smaller at a lower or right location, compared to an upper or left location. In contrast, Snyder and Schmidt ([2014]. No evidence for directional biases in inhibition of return. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(2), 432–435. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0511-3) argued that IOR is unaffected by spatial biases and that any observed differences are better explained by general reaction time differences depending on the target’s location. In two experiments (both N = 31), we aimed to test both diverging predictions by presenting cue and target at four locations along the vertical and horizontal axis. Controlling for a main effect of RTs at different target locations, we still observed a spatial bias on IOR, in that the effect was smaller at the lower than the upper target location. We also found a comparable spatial bias on the IOR-related phenomenon of early facilitation (EF). The results suggest that the magnitude and occurrence of both IOR and EF are affected by spatial configurations. Similarities with spatial biases on other visual phenomena as well as theoretical implications are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Inhibition of return
• early facilitation
• spatial bias
• attentional orienting

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

Data and code for both experiments is availabe under https://osf.io/br96e/. None of the experiments reported here was preregistered.

Notes

1 The participant had an error rate of 47.14%, whereas the remaining sample had a mean error rate of 1.89%.

2 In an additional MANOVA with the percentage of correct responding to catch trials as the dependent variable and cue location (lower, upper, left, vs. right) as the independent variable, the main effect of cue position did not reach significance, F(3, 28) = 2.49, p = .081, η_p² = .21.

3 Following Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), all repeated-measures designs are inherently multivariate which is why we calculated MANOVAs because they have the advantage that sphericity is not a precondition for the analysis.

4 For an overview of RTs as a function of Experiment, cue-target-relation, SOA, and target location see Appendix 1. For an overview of all conducted MANOVAs and their results see Appendix 2.

5 Note that the term early facilitation is often used in the IOR literature (e.g. Lupiáñez et al., 2001; Smith & Henderson, 2009), however it shares similarities with the Posner cueing paradigm, in that a cue validly or invalidly cues a target appearing shortly after and a RT benefit is observed when cue and target are presented at the same location (Posner, 1980; Posner & Petersen, 1990).

6 Due to organisational problems two participants finished the study twice. In those cases, only the first run was entered into the analysis.

7 The excluded participant had an error rate of 74.5%, whereas the remaining sample had a mean error rate of 4.93%.

8 An additional MANOVA with the percentage of correct responding to catch trials as the dependent variable and cue location (lower, upper, left, vs. right) as the independent variable showed a main effect of cue position, F(3, 28) = 5.99, p = .003, η_p² = .39. Subsequent t-tests revealed a lower accuracy at the lower (89.0%) than the upper (92.7%) cue location, t(30) = 3.80, p < .001, d = 0.68, yet no difference between the left (91.9%) and right (90.4%) cue location emerged, t(30) = 1.68, p = .104, d = 0.30.

9 Note that with the attentional momentum account (Spalek & Hammad, 2004; Pratt et al., 1999; Spalek & Di Lollo, 2007) an explanation for IOR exists which is based on the idea that the successive presentation of cue and targets leads to a motion perception.

10 We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this possible alternative explanation.

11 IOR effects from both Experiments were used to compare the horizontal meridian against the vertical meridian. For Diff_opposite a planned contrast was significant, F(1, 60) = 135.07, p < .001, η_p² = .69, yet not for Diff_orthogonal trials, F(1, 60) = 1.47, p = .230, η_p² = .02.

Additional information

Funding

This publication resulted (in part) from research grants by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft awarded to Lars-Michael Schöpper [SCHO2000/1-1] and Simon Merz [ME 5568/1-1].