scholarly journals Fruitful visual search: Inhibition of return in a virtual foraging task

2005 ◽  
Vol 5 (8) ◽  
pp. 1014-1014
Author(s):  
L. E. Thomas ◽  
M. S. Ambinder ◽  
B. Hsieh ◽  
B. Levinthal ◽  
J. A. Crowell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Search ◽  
Inhibition Of Return ◽  
Foraging Task

scholarly journals Fruitful visual search: Inhibition of return in a virtual foraging task

2006 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 891-895 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura E. Thomas ◽  
Michael S. Ambinder ◽  
Brendon Hsieh ◽  
Brian Levinthal ◽  
James A. Crowell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Search ◽  
Inhibition Of Return ◽  
Foraging Task

Inhibition of return at multiple sites in visual search

1997 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janice J. Snyder ◽  
Shai Danziger ◽  
Alan Kingstone
Keyword(s):  
Visual Search ◽  
Inhibition Of Return

scholarly journals Attention and its Role: Theories and Models

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (12) ◽  
pp. 169
Author(s):  
Athanasios Drigas ◽  
Maria Karyotaki
Keyword(s):  
Visual Search ◽  
Inhibition Of Return ◽  
Saliency Map ◽  
Saccadic Suppression ◽  
Covert Attention ◽  
Attentional Deployment ◽  
Affect And Cognition ◽  
Visual Scenes ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
Complete Account

Motivation, affect and cognition are interrelated. However, the control of attentional deployment and more specifically, attempting to provide a more complete account of the interactions between the dorsal and ventral processing streams is still a challenge. The interaction between overt and covert attention is particularly important for models concerned with visual search. Further modeling of such interactions can assist to scrutinize many mechanisms, such as saccadic suppression, dynamic remapping of the saliency map and inhibition of return, covert pre-selection of targets for overt saccades and online understanding of complex visual scenes.

scholarly journals Inhibition of Return in Fear of Spiders: Discrepant Eye Movement and Reaction Time Data

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisa Berdica ◽  
Antje B. M. Gerdes ◽  
Andre Pittig ◽  
Georg W. Alpers
Keyword(s):  
Visual Search ◽  
Eye Movements ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Significant Interaction ◽  
Discrimination Task ◽  
Inhibition Of Return ◽  
Reaction Time Data ◽  
Stimulus Category ◽  
Tracking Data ◽  
Time Data

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to a bias against returning the attention to a previously attended location. As a foraging facilitator it is thought to facilitate systematic visual search. With respect to neutral stimuli, this is generally thought to be adaptive, but when threatening stimuli appear in our environment, such a bias may be maladaptive. This experiment investigated the influence of phobia-related stimuli on the IOR effect using a discrimination task. A sample of 50 students (25 high, 25 low in spider fear) completed an IOR task including schematic representations of spiders or butterflies as targets. Eye movements were recorded and to assess discrimination among targets, participants indicated with button presses if targets were spiders or butterflies. Reaction time data did not reveal a significant IOR effect but a significant interaction of group and target; spider fearful participants were faster to respond to spider targets than to butterflies. Furthermore, eye-tracking data showed a robust IOR effect independent of stimulus category. These results offer a more comprehensive assessment of the motor and oculomotor factors involved in the IOR effect.

scholarly journals Saccadic and manual response time data on inhibition of return during and after a visual search

Data in Brief ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 107565
Author(s):  
Margit Höfler ◽  
Sebastian A. Bauch ◽  
Katrin Liebergesell ◽  
Iain D. Gilchrist ◽  
Anja Ischebeck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Search ◽  
Response Time ◽  
Inhibition Of Return ◽  
Response Time Data ◽  
Time Data ◽  
Manual Response

scholarly journals Sit-and-Wait Strategies in Dynamic Visual Search

2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 309-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian von Mühlenen ◽  
Hermann J. Müller ◽  
Dagmar Müller
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Data ◽  
Visual Search ◽  
Inhibition Of Return ◽  
Search Task ◽  
Visual Search Task ◽  
Dynamic Condition ◽  
Static Condition ◽  
Limited Region ◽  
Rule Out

The role of memory in visual search has lately become a controversial issue. Horowitz and Wolfe (1998) observed that performance in a visual search task was little affected by whether the stimuli were static or randomly relocated every 111 ms. Because a memory-based mechanism, such as inhibition of return, would be of no use in the dynamic condition, Horowitz and Wolfe concluded that memory is likewise not involved in the static condition. However, Horowitz and Wolfe could not effectively rule out the possibility that observers adopted a different strategy in the dynamic condition than in the static condition. That is, in the dynamic condition observers may have attended to a subregion of the display and waited for the target to appear there (sit-and-wait strategy). This hypothesis is supported by experimental data showing that performance in their dynamic condition does not differ from performance in another dynamic condition in which observers are forced to adopt a sit-and-wait strategy by being presented with a limited region of the display only.

Inhibition of return at multiple locations in visual search: When you see it and when you don't

2001 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 1221-1237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janice J. Snyder ◽  
Alan Kingstone
Keyword(s):  
Visual Search ◽  
Attentional Capture ◽  
Inhibition Of Return ◽  
Conclusive Evidence ◽  
Target Onset ◽  
Alternative Account ◽  
Sequential Task ◽  
Data Support

Using a novel sequential task, Danziger, Kingstone, and Snyder (1998) provided conclusive evidence that inhibition of return (IOR) can co-occur at multiple non-contiguous locations. They argued that their findings depended crucially on the allocation of attention to cued locations. Specifically, they hypothesized that because subjects could not predict whether an onset event was a target or a non-target, all onset events had to be attended. As a result, non-targets were tagged with inhibition. The present study tested this hypothesis by manipulating whether target onset was predictable or not. In support of Danziger et al., three experiments revealed that multiple IOR was only observed when attention had to be directed to the cued locations. Interestingly, when attention did not need to be allocated to the cued locations, and multiple IOR was abolished, an IOR effect was still observed at the most recently cued location. Two possible accounts for this single IOR effect were presented for future investigation. One account attributes the effect to motor-based inhibition as hypothesized by Klein and Taylor (1994). The alternative account attributes the effect to weak attentional capture by a peripheral cue. Together the data support the view that multiple IOR is an attentional phenomenon and, as hypothesized by Tipper, Weaver, and Watson (1996), its presence or absence is largely under the control of the observer.

scholarly journals Inhibition of return in a visual foraging task in non-human subjects

2012 ◽  
Vol 74 ◽  
pp. 2-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Solmaz Shariat Torbaghan ◽  
Daniel Yazdi ◽  
Koorosh Mirpour ◽  
James W. Bisley
Keyword(s):  
Inhibition Of Return ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Visual Foraging ◽  
Foraging Task

scholarly journals Been There, Seen That: A Neural Mechanism for Performing Efficient Visual Search

2009 ◽  
Vol 102 (6) ◽  
pp. 3481-3491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koorosh Mirpour ◽  
Fabrice Arcizet ◽  
Wei Song Ong ◽  
James W. Bisley
Keyword(s):  
Visual Search ◽  
Neural Mechanism ◽  
Saliency Map ◽  
Lateral Intraparietal Area ◽  
Goal Selection ◽  
Reward Expectancy ◽  
Irrelevant Distractors ◽  
Saliency Map Models ◽  
Task Irrelevant ◽  
Foraging Task

In everyday life, we efficiently find objects in the world by moving our gaze from one location to another. The efficiency of this process is brought about by ignoring items that are dissimilar to the target and remembering which target-like items have already been examined. We trained two animals on a visual foraging task in which they had to find a reward-loaded target among five task-irrelevant distractors and five potential targets. We found that both animals performed the task efficiently, ignoring the distractors and rarely examining a particular target twice. We recorded the single unit activity of 54 neurons in the lateral intraparietal area (LIP) while the animals performed the task. The responses of the neurons differentiated between targets and distractors throughout the trial. Further, the responses marked off targets that had been fixated by a reduction in activity. This reduction acted like inhibition of return in saliency map models; items that had been fixated would no longer be represented by high enough activity to draw an eye movement. This reduction could also be seen as a correlate of reward expectancy; after a target had been identified as not containing the reward the activity was reduced. Within a trial, responses to the remaining targets did not increase as they became more likely to yield a result, suggesting that only activity related to an event is updated on a moment-by-moment bases. Together, our data show that all the neural activity required to guide efficient search is present in LIP. Because LIP activity is known to correlate with saccade goal selection, we propose that LIP plays a significant role in the guidance of efficient visual search.

scholarly journals Inhibition of return with rapid serial shifts of attention: Implications for memory and visual search

2003 ◽  
Vol 65 (7) ◽  
pp. 1126-1135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael D. Dodd ◽  
Alan D. Castel ◽  
Jay Pratt
Keyword(s):  
Visual Search ◽  
Inhibition Of Return
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document