Revisiting the global effect and inhibition of return

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Saccades toward previously cued locations have longer latencies than saccades toward other locations, a phenomenon known as inhibition of return (IOR). Watanabe (Exp Brain Res 138:330-342. doi: 10.1007/s002210100709 , 2001) combined IOR with the global effect (where saccade landing points fall in between neighboring objects) to investigate whether IOR can also have a spatial component. When one of two neighboring targets was cued, there was a clear bias away from the cued location. In a condition where both targets were cued, it appeared that the global effect magnitude was similar to the condition without any cues. However, as the latencies in the double cue condition were shorter compared to the no cue condition, it is still an open question whether these results are representative for IOR. Considering the double cue condition can provide valuable insight into the interaction of the mechanisms underlying the two phenomena, here, we revisit this condition in an adapted paradigm. Our paradigm does result in longer latencies for the cued locations, and we find that the magnitude of the global effect is reduced significantly. Unexpectedly, this holds even when only including saccades with the same latencies for both conditions. Thus, the increased latencies associated with IOR cannot directly explain the reduction in global effect. The global effect reduction can likely best be seen as either a result of short-term depression of exogenous visual signals or a result of IOR established at the center of gravity of cues.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2999-3009
JournalExperimental Brain Research
Volume234
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Keywords

  • Inhibition of return
  • Global effect
  • Saccadic landing points
  • Saccade averaging
  • Motor attraction
  • Visual selection

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Revisiting the global effect and inhibition of return'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this