Location- and Object-Based Inhibition of Return are Affected by Different Kinds of Working Memory

Abstract

Castel, Pratt, and Craik (2003) have shown that inhibition of return (IOR, the delayed response to a recently cued item) is disrupted by a secondary task that involves spatial working memory (WM), and they suggest that IOR is mediated by spatial WM. However, they did not specify what kind of IOR was involved. We used a dual-task paradigm to examine whether the two kinds of IOR (location- and object-based IOR) are affected by two kinds of secondary task that involve spatial and nonspatial WM, respectively. The results show that location-based IOR was disrupted by a spatial secondary task while the object-based IOR was disrupted by a nonspatial secondary task. The present study further elaborates the conclusion of Castel et al. (2003) by differentiating the effect of the two kinds of WM (spatial vs. nonspatial) on the two kinds of IOR (location based vs. object based).

Keywords

Attention Visual perception Dual task

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Castel

A. D.

Pratt

Craik

F. I. M.

(2003). The role of spatial working memory in inhibition of return: Evidence from divided attention tasks. Perception & Psychophysics 65, 970–981.

Chou

W. L.

Yeh

S. L.

(2005). Object-based inhibition of return: Evidence from overlapping objects. Chinese Journal of Psychology 47, 1–13.

Duncan

(1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113, 501–517.

Egly

Driver

Rafal

R. D.

(1994). Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 123, 161–177.

Forster

K. I.

Forster

J. C.

(2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 35, 116–124.

Gibson

B. S.

Egeth

(1994). Inhibition of return to object-based and environment-based locations. Perception & Psychophysics 55, 323–339.

Haimson

Behrmann

(2001). Cued visual attention does not distinguish between occluded and occluding objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 8, 496–503.

Jordan

Tipper

S. P.

(1998). Object-based inhibition of return in static display. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 5, 504–509.

Jordan

Tipper

S. P.

(1999). Spread of inhibition across an object's surface. British Journal of Psychology 90, 495–507.

10.

Müller

H. J.

von Muhlenen

(1996). Attentional tracking and inhibition of return in dynamic displays. Perception & Psychophysics 58, 224–249.

11.

Posner

M. I.

Cohen

(1984). Components of visual orienting. Attention and performance X: Control of language processes Bouma

Bouwhuis

D. G.

Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 531–556.

12.

Posner

M. I.

Rafal

R. D.

Choate

L. S.

Vaughan

(1985). Inhibition of return: Neural basis and function. Cognitive Neuropsychology 2, 211–228.

13.

Samuel

A. G.

Kat

(2003). Inhibition of return: A graphical meta-analysis of its time course and an empirical test of its temporal and spatial properties. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10, 897–906.

14.

Schendel

K. L.

Robertson

L. C.

Treisman

(2001). Objects and their locations in exogenous cuing. Perception & Psychophysics 63, 577–594.

15.

Tipper

S. P.

Driver

Weaver

(1991). Object-centred inhibition of return of visual attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 43A, 289–298.

16.

Tipper

S. P.

Grison

Kessler

(2003). Long-term inhibition of return of attention. Psychological Science 14, 19–25.

17.

Tipper

S. P.

Weaver

Jerreat

L. M.

Burak

A. L.

(1994). Object-based and environment-based inhibition of return of visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20, 478–499.