Examining the dissociation of retinotopic and spatiotopic inhibition of return with event-related potentials

Neural Mechanisms of Reward-by-Cueing Interactions: ERP Evidence

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the phenomenon that a person is slower to respond to targets at a previously cued location. The present study aimed to explore whether target-reward association is subject to IOR, using event-related potentials (ERPs) to explore the underlying neural mechanism. Each participant performed a localization task and a color discrimination task in an exogenous cueing paradigm, with the targets presented in colors (green/red) previously associated with high- or low-reward probability. The results of both tasks revealed that the N1, Nd, and P3 components exhibited differential amplitudes between cued and uncued trials (i.e., IOR) under low reward, with the N1 and Nd amplitudes being enhanced for uncued trials compared to cued trials, and the P3 amplitude being enhanced for cued trials vs. uncued trials. Under high reward, however, no difference was found between the amplitudes on cued and uncued trials for any of the components. These findings demonstrate that targets that were previously associated with high reward can be resistant to IOR and the current results enrich the evidence for interactions between reward-association and attentional orientation in the cueing paradigm.

Electrophysiological evidence of different neural processing between visual and audiovisual inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the slower response to targets appearing on the same side as the cue (valid locations) than to targets appearing on the opposite side as the cue (invalid locations). Previous behaviour studies have found that the visual IOR is larger than the audiovisual IOR when focusing on both visual and auditory modalities. Utilising the high temporal resolution of the event-related potential (ERP) technique we explored the possible neural correlates with the behaviour IOR difference between visual and audiovisual targets. The behavioural results revealed that the visual IOR was larger than the audiovisual IOR. The ERP results showed that the visual IOR effect was generated from the P1 and N2 components, while the audiovisual IOR effect was derived only from the P3 component. Multisensory integration (MSI) of audiovisual targets occurred on the P1, N1 and P3 components, which may offset the reduced perceptual processing due to audiovisual IOR. The results of early and late differences in the neural processing of the visual IOR and audiovisual IOR imply that the two target types may have different inhibitory orientation mechanisms.

Neural Representations of Covert Attention across Saccades: Comparing Pattern Similarity to Shifting and Holding Attention during Fixation

We can focus visuospatial attention by covertly attending to relevant locations, moving our eyes, or both simultaneously. How does shifting versus holding covert attention during fixation compare with maintaining covert attention across saccades? We acquired human fMRI data during a combined saccade and covert attention task. On Eyes-fixed trials, participants either held attention at the same initial location (“hold attention”) or shifted attention to another location midway through the trial (“shift attention”). On Eyes-move trials, participants made a saccade midway through the trial, while maintaining attention in one of two reference frames: the “retinotopic attention” condition involved holding attention at a fixation-relative location but shifting to a different screen-centered location, whereas the “spatiotopic attention” condition involved holding attention on the same screen-centered location but shifting relative to fixation. We localized the brain network sensitive to attention shifts (shift > hold attention), and used multivoxel pattern time course (MVPTC) analyses to investigate the patterns of brain activity for spatiotopic and retinotopic attention across saccades. In the attention shift network, we found transient information about both whether covert shifts were made and whether saccades were executed. Moreover, in this network, both retinotopic and spatiotopic conditions were represented more similarly to shifting than to holding covert attention. An exploratory searchlight analysis revealed additional regions where spatiotopic was relatively more similar to shifting and retinotopic more to holding. Thus, maintaining retinotopic and spatiotopic attention across saccades may involve different types of updating that vary in similarity to covert attention “hold” and “shift” signals across different regions.

Attentional reference frames in perifoveal and peripheral visual field

Using inhibition of return as an indicator, we tested whether spatial attention in the perifoveal and peripheral visual field shares the same reference frame. The perifoveal visual field is apparently dominated by the environmental frame whereas the periphery seems to operate with both environmental and retinotopic frames.

Exploring the temporal dynamics of inhibition of return using steady-state visual evoked potentials

Inhibition of return is characterized by delayed responses to previously attended locations when the interval between stimuli is long enough. The present study employed steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs) as a measure of attentional modulation to explore the nature and time course of input- and output-based inhibitory cueing mechanisms that each slow response times at previously stimulated locations under different experimental conditions. The neural effects of behavioral inhibition were examined by comparing post-cue SSVEPs between cued and uncued locations measured across two tasks that differed only in the response modality (saccadic or manual response to targets). Grand averages of SSVEP amplitudes for each condition showed a reduction in amplitude at cued locations in the window of 100-500 ms post-cue, revealing an early, short-term decrease in the responses of neurons that can be attributed to sensory adaptation, regardless of response modality. Because primary visual cortex has been found to be one of the major sources of SSVEP signals, the results suggest that the SSVEP modulations observed were caused by input-based inhibition that occurred in V1, or visual areas earlier than V1, as a consequence of reduced visual input activity at previously cued locations. No SSVEP modulations were observed in either response condition late in the cue-target interval, suggesting that neither late input- nor output-based IOR modulates SSVEPs. These findings provide further electrophysiological support for the theory of multiple mechanisms contributing to behavioral cueing effects.

No evidence for an independent retinotopic reference frame for inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) represents a delay in responding to a previously inspected location and is viewed as a crucial mechanism that sways attention toward novelty in visual search. Although most visual processing occurs in retinotopic, eye-centered, coordinates, IOR must be coded in spatiotopic, environmental, coordinates to successfully serve its role as a foraging facilitator. Early studies supported this suggestion but recent results have shown that both spatiotopic and retinotopic reference frames of IOR may co-exist. The present study tested possible sources for IOR at the retinotopic location including being part of the spatiotopic IOR gradient, part of hemifield inhibition and being an independent source of IOR. We conducted four experiments that alternated the cue-target spatial distance (discrete and contiguous) and the response modality (manual and saccadic). In all experiments, we tested spatiotopic, retinotopic and neutral (neither spatiotopic nor retinotopic) locations. We did find IOR at both the retinotopic and spatiotopic locations but no evidence for an independent source of retinotopic IOR for either of the response modalities. In fact, we observed the spread of IOR across entire validly cued hemifield including at neutral locations. We conclude that these results indicate a strategy to inhibit the whole cued hemifield or suggest a large horizontal gradient around the spatiotopically cued location. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: We perceive the visual world around us as stable despite constant shifts of the retinal image due to saccadic eye movements. In this study, we explore whether Inhibition of return (IOR), a mechanism preventing us from returning to previously attended locations, operates in spatiotopic, world-centered or in retinal, eye-centered coordinates. We tested both saccadic and manual IOR at spatiotopic, retinotopic, and control locations. We did not find an independent retinotopic source of IOR for either of the response modalities. The results suggest that IOR spreads over the whole previously attended visual hemifield or there is a large horizontal spatiotopic gradient. The current results are in line with the idea of IOR being a foraging facilitator in visual search and contribute to our understanding of spatiotopically organized aspects of visual and attentional systems.

What Neuroscientific Studies Tell Us about Inhibition of Return

An inhibitory aftermath of orienting, inhibition of return (IOR), has intrigued scholars since its discovery about 40 years ago. Since then, the phenomenon has been subjected to a wide range of neuroscientific methods and the results of these are reviewed in this paper. These include direct manipulations of brain structures (which occur naturally in brain damage and disease or experimentally as in TMS and lesion studies) and measurements of brain activity (in humans using EEG and fMRI and in animals using single unit recording). A variety of less direct methods (e.g., computational modeling, developmental studies, etc.) have also been used. The findings from this wide range of methods support the critical role of subcortical and cortical oculomotor pathways in the generation and nature of IOR.

Inhibitory and Facilitatory Cueing Effects: Competition between Exogenous and Endogenous Mechanisms

Inhibition of return is characterized by delayed responses to previously attended locations when the cue-target onset asynchrony (CTOA) is long enough. However, when cues are predictive of a target’s location, faster reaction times to cued as compared to uncued targets are normally observed. In this series of experiments investigating saccadic reaction times, we manipulated the cue predictability to 25% (counterpredictive), 50% (nonpredictive), and 75% (predictive) to investigate the interaction between predictive endogenous facilitatory (FCEs) and inhibitory cueing effects (ICEs). Overall, larger ICEs were seen in the counterpredictive condition than in the nonpredictive condition, and no ICE was found in the predictive condition. Based on the hypothesized additivity of FCEs and ICEs, we reasoned that the null ICEs observed in the predictive condition are the result of two opposing mechanisms balancing each other out, and the large ICEs observed with counterpredictive cueing can be attributed to the combination of endogenous facilitation at uncued locations with inhibition at cued locations. Our findings suggest that the endogenous activity contributed by cue predictability can reduce the overall inhibition observed when the mechanisms occur at the same location, or enhance behavioral inhibition when the mechanisms occur at opposite locations.

The puzzle of spontaneous alternation and inhibition of return: How they might fit together

Two isolated spatial phenomena share a similar "been there; done that" effect on spatial behavior. Originally discovered in rodent learning experiments, spontaneous alternation is a tendency for the organism to visit a different arm in a T-maze on subsequent trials. Originally discovered in human studies of attention, inhibition of return is a tendency for the organism to orient away from a previously attended location. Whereas spontaneous alternation was identified by O'Keefe & Nadel as dependent on an intact hippocampus, inhibition of return is dependent on neural structures that participate in oculomotor control (the superior colliculus, parietal and frontal cortex). Despite the isolated literatures, each phenomenon has been assumed to reflect a basic novelty-seeking process, avoiding places previously visited or locations attended. In this commentary, we explore and compare the behavioral manifestations and neural underpinnings of these two phenomena, and suggest what is still needed to determine whether they operate in parallel or serial.

Time course of inhibition of return in a spatial cueing paradigm with distractors

Studies of endogenous and exogenous attentional orienting in spatial cueing paradigms have been used to investigate inhibition of return, a behavioral phenomenon characterized by delayed reaction time in response to recently attended locations. When eye movements are suppressed, attention is covertly oriented to central or peripheral stimuli. Overt orienting, on the other hand, requires explicit eye movements to the stimuli. The present study examined the time course of slowed reaction times to previously attended locations when distractors are introduced into overt and covert orienting tasks. In a series of experiments, manual responses were required to targets following central and peripheral cues at three different cue-target intervals, with and without activated oculomotor systems. The results demonstrate that, when eye movements are suppressed, behavioral inhibition is reduced or delayed in magnitude by the presence of a distractor relative to conditions without distractors. However, the time course of behavioral inhibition when eye movements are required remains similar with or without distractors.

The Time Course of Inhibition of Return: Evidence from Steady-State Visual Evoked Potentials

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slower responses to targets at a previously cued location than that at an uncued location. The time course of IOR has long been a topic of interest in the field. Investigations into the time course of IOR are typically performed by examining the magnitude of IOR under various cue-target onset asynchrony (CTOA) conditions. Therefore, the results are vulnerable to influence of factors that could affect the target processes (e.g., the frequency of the target type). In the present study, steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs) were implemented to directly take a continuous measurement of the degree to which cued location is processed, eliminating the influence mentioned above. The results indicate that, relative to the baseline interval (−400 to 0 ms), the presence of peripheral cues generated a typical two-stage effect on the SSVEP amplitude evoked by a 20 Hz flicker. Specifically, after the onset of the peripheral cues, the SSVEP amplitude first showed a significant increase, which subsequently turned into a significant inhibition effect after 200 ms. These results provide a continuous time course diagram of the cueing effect and suggest an effective way for future investigations of controlling the masking effects of target stimuli processing on IOR.

The Different Inhibition of Return (IOR) Effects of Emergency Managerial Experts and Novices: An Event-Related Potentials Study

Inhibition of return (IOR) is an important effect of attention. However, the IOR of emergency managerial experts is unknown. By employing emergency and natural scene pictures in expert-novice paradigm, the present study explored the neural activity underlying the IOR effects for emergency managerial experts and novices. In behavioral results, there were no differences of IOR effects between novices and emergency managerial experts, while the event-related potentials (ERPs) results were different between novices and experts. In Experiment 1 (novice group), ERPs results showed no any IOR was robust at both stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) of 200 ms and 400 ms. In Experiment 2 (expert group), ERPs results showed an enhanced N2 at SOA of 200 ms and attenuated P3 at cued location in the right parietal lobe and adjacent brain regions than uncued location at SOA of 200 ms. The findings of the two experiments showed that, relative to the novices, IOR for the emergency managerial experts was robust, and dominated in the right parietal lobe and adjacent brain regions, suggesting more flexible attentional processing and higher visual search efficiency of the emergency managerial experts. The findings indicate that the P3, possible N2, over the right parietal lobe and adjacent brain regions are the biological indicators for IOR elicited by post-cued emergency pictures for emergency managerial experts.

Object-location binding across a saccade: A retinotopic spatial congruency bias

Despite frequent eye movements that rapidly shift the locations of objects on our retinas, our visual system creates a stable perception of the world. To do this, it must convert eye-centered (retinotopic) input to world-centered (spatiotopic) percepts. Moreover, for successful behavior we must also incorporate information about object features/identities during this updating - a fundamental challenge that remains to be understood. Here we adapted a recent behavioral paradigm, the "spatial congruency bias," to investigate object-location binding across an eye movement. In two initial baseline experiments, we showed that the spatial congruency bias was present for both gabor and face stimuli in addition to the object stimuli used in the original paradigm. Then, across three main experiments, we found the bias was preserved across an eye movement, but only in retinotopic coordinates: Subjects were more likely to perceive two stimuli as having the same features/identity when they were presented in the same retinotopic location. Strikingly, there was no evidence of location binding in the more ecologically relevant spatiotopic (world-centered) coordinates; the reference frame did not update to spatiotopic even at longer post-saccade delays, nor did it transition to spatiotopic with more complex stimuli (gabors, shapes, and faces all showed a retinotopic congruency bias). Our results suggest that object-location binding may be tied to retinotopic coordinates, and that it may need to be re-established following each eye movement rather than being automatically updated to spatiotopic coordinates.

Is Inhibition of Return Modulated by Involuntary Orienting of Spatial Attention: An ERP Study

Inhibition of return (IOR) is a mechanism that indicates individuals’ faster responses or higher accuracy to targets appearing in the novel location relative to the cued location. According to the “reorienting hypothesis,” disengagement from the cued location is necessary for the generation of IOR. However, more and more studies have questioned this theory because of dissociation between voluntary or involuntary spatial orienting and the IOR effect. To further explore the “reorienting hypothesis” of IOR, the present experiment employed an atypical cue-target paradigm which combined a spatially non-predictive peripheral cue that was presumed to trigger IOR with a spatially non-predictive central cue that was used to reflexively trigger a shift of attention. The results showed that a significant IOR effect did not interact with automatic spatial orienting as measured in mean RTs and accuracy as well as the Nd component. These findings suggested that the IOR effect triggered by peripheral cue was independent of automatic orienting generated by a central cue. Therefore, the present study provided evidence from location task and neural aspects, which again challenged the “reorienting hypothesis” of IOR.

Perisaccadic Updating of Visual Representations and Attentional States: Linking Behavior and Neurophysiology

During natural vision, saccadic eye movements lead to frequent retinal image changes that result in different neuronal subpopulations representing the same visual feature across fixations. Despite these potentially disruptive changes to the neural representation, our visual percept is remarkably stable. Visual receptive field remapping, characterized as an anticipatory shift in the position of a neuron's spatial receptive field immediately before saccades, has been proposed as one possible neural substrate for visual stability. Many of the specific properties of remapping, e.g., the exact direction of remapping relative to the saccade vector and the precise mechanisms by which remapping could instantiate stability, remain a matter of debate. Recent studies have also shown that visual attention, like perception itself, can be sustained across saccades, suggesting that the attentional control system can also compensate for eye movements. Classical remapping could have an attentional component, or there could be a distinct attentional analog of visual remapping. At this time we do not yet fully understand how the stability of attentional representations relates to perisaccadic receptive field shifts. In this review, we develop a vocabulary for discussing perisaccadic shifts in receptive field location and perisaccadic shifts of attentional focus, review and synthesize behavioral and neurophysiological studies of perisaccadic perception and perisaccadic attention, and identify open questions that remain to be experimentally addressed.

Environment- and eye-centered inhibitory cueing effects are both observed after a methodological confound is eliminated

Inhibition of return (IOR), typically explored in cueing paradigms, is a performance cost associated with previously attended locations and has been suggested as a crucial attentional mechanism that biases orientation towards novelty. In their seminal IOR paper, Posner and Cohen (1984) showed that IOR is coded in spatiotopic or environment-centered coordinates. Recent studies, however, have consistently reported IOR effects in both spatiotopic and retinotopic (eye-centered) coordinates. One overlooked methodological confound of all previous studies is that the spatial gradient of IOR is not considered when selecting the baseline for estimating IOR effects. This methodological issue makes it difficult to tell if the IOR effects reported in previous studies were coded in retinotopic or spatiotopic coordinates, or in both. The present study addresses this issue with the incorporation of no-cue trials to a modified cueing paradigm in which the cue and target are always intervened by a gaze-shift. The results revealed that a) IOR is indeed coded in both spatiotopic and retinotopic coordinates, and b) the methodology of previous work may have underestimated spatiotopic and retinotopic IOR effects.

In search of a reliable electrophysiological marker of oculomotor inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) operationalizes a behavioral phenomenon characterized by slower responding to cued, relative to uncued, targets. Two independent forms of IOR have been theorized: input-based IOR occurs when the oculomotor system is quiescent, while output-based IOR occurs when the oculomotor system is engaged. EEG studies forbidding eye movements have demonstrated that reductions of target-elicited P1 components are correlated with IOR magnitude, but when eye movements occur, P1 effects bear no relationship to behavior. We expand on this work by adapting the cueing paradigm and recording event-related potentials: IOR is caused by oculomotor responses to central arrows or peripheral onsets and measured by key presses to peripheral targets. Behavioral IOR is observed in both conditions, but P1 reductions are absent in the central arrow condition. By contrast, arrow and peripheral cues enhance Nd, especially over contralateral electrode sites.

Stimulus-Locked and Response-Locked ERP Correlates of Spatial Inhibition of Return (IOR) in Old Age

Behavioral research has shown that Inhibition of Return (IOR) is preserved in old age although at longer time intervals between cue and target, which has been interpreted as reflecting a later disengagement from the cue. A recent event-related potential (ERP) study attributed this age-related pattern to an enhanced processing of the cue. Previous ERP research in young samples indicates that target and response processing are also affected by IOR, which makes interesting to study the ERP correlates of IOR from cue presentation to response execution. In this regard, in the present study stimulus-locked (cue-locked and target-locked) and response-locked ERPs were explored in healthy young and older participants. The behavioral results indicated preserved IOR in the older participants. The cue-locked ERPs could suggest that the older participants processed the cue as a warning signal to prepare for the upcoming target stimulus. Under IOR, target-locked ERPs of both age groups showed lower N1 amplitudes suggesting a suppression/inhibition of cued targets. During the P3 rising period, in young subjects a negative shift (Nd effect) to cued targets was observed in the lower visual field (LVF), and a positive shift (Pd effect) in the upper visual field. However, in the older group the Nd effect was absent suggesting a reduction of attentional resolution in the LVF. The older group showed enhanced motor activation to prepare correct responses, although IOR effects on response-locked lateralized readiness potential LRP indicated reduced response preparation to cued targets in both age groups. In general, results suggest that the older adults inhibit or reduce the visual processing of targets appearing at cued locations, and the preparation to respond to them, but with the added cost of allocating more attentional resources onto the cue and of maintaining a more effortful processing during the sequence of stimuli within the trial.

Investigating a two causes theory of inhibition of return

It has recently been demonstrated that there are independent sensory and motor mechanisms underlying inhibition of return (IOR) when measured with oculomotor responses (Wang et al. in Exp Brain Res 218:441-453, 2012). However, these results are seemingly in conflict with previous empirical results which led to the proposal that there are two mutually exclusive flavors of IOR (Taylor and Klein in J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26:1639-1656, 2000). The observed differences in empirical results across these studies and the theoretical frameworks that were proposed based on the results are likely due to differences in the experimental designs. The current experiments establish that the existence of additive sensory and motor contributions to IOR do not depend on target type, repeated spatiotopic stimulation, attentional control settings, or a temporal gap between fixation offset and cue onset, when measured with saccadic responses. Furthermore, our experiments show that the motor mechanism proposed by Wang et al. in Exp Brain Res 218:441-453, (2012) is likely restricted to the oculomotor system, since the additivity effect does not carry over into the manual response modality.