IAHRW International Journal of Social Sciences Review

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Effect of Cue and Task Type on Inhibition of Return in Sustained Attention Task


Affiliations
1 Department of Psychology, R. S. K. D. P. G. College, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Department of Psychology, Vasanta College for Women (Krishanmurti Foundation of India) Rajghat Fort, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Inhibition of return (IOR) is a robust phenomenon that refers to slow response at previously seen location than new location. IOR helps attention to orient towards novel or uncued locations. In the present study effect of cue (valid & invalid cue) and task type (Discrimination & detection tasks) is explored on the IOR phenomenon during sustained attention tasks. A 2 (Task type: Detection & Discrimination Tasks) x 2 (Cue Validity: Valid & Invalid) x 3 (time period: blocks of 10 min) mixed factorial design with repeated measure on the last two factors has been employed. Correct detection and RT were taken as performance measures. Results revealed significant effect of cue on correct detection. Participants detected more targets under valid cue condition than invalid cue in discrimination task in all three blocks while in detection task after the first block participants detected more targets under invalid cue than valid cue. RT results showed that response was facilitated under valid cue than invalid cue condition. Thus, the findings showed that IOR was not seen in discrimination as well as detection task. Probably the SOA level was not sufficient to generate the IOR. Small sample size and nature of task also may be responsible for not generating the IOR.

Keywords

Inhibition of Return, Cue, Detection Task, Discrimination Task.
User
Subscription Login to verify subscription
Notifications
Font Size

  • Bao, Y., Zhou, J., & Fu, L. (2004). Aging and the time course of inhibition of return in a static environment. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 64,403-414.

  • Chica, A. B., Lupianez, J., & Bartolomeo, R (2006). Dissociating inhibition of return from the endogenous orienting of spatial attention: Evidence from detection and discrimination tasks. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23(7), 1015-1034.

  • Danziger, S., & Kingstone, A. (1999). Unmasking the inhibition of return phenomenon. PerceptionandPsychophysics, 61(6), 1024-1037.

  • Dodd, M. D., Castel, A. D., & Pratt, J. (2003). Inhibition of return with rapidserial shifts of attention: Implications for memory and visual search. Perception and Psychophysics, 65(7), 1126-1135.

  • Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2001). Search for multiple targets: Remember the targets, forget the search. Perception and Psychophysics, 65,272-285.

  • Jerman, J. (2006). Where is the inhibition in inhibition of return? (Project report) Retrieved from https://open.library.ubc.ca/media/download/pdf/52966/1.008605 0/1.

  • Kingstone, A., & Pratt, J. (1999). Inhibition of return is composed of attentional and oculomotor processes. Perception and Psychophysics, 61, 1046-1054.

  • Klein, R. M. (1988). Inhibitory tagging system facilitates visual search. Nature, 334, 430-431.

  • Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 138-147.

  • Lupianez, J., & Milliken, B. (1999). Inhibition of return and the attentional set for integrating versus differentiating information. Journal of General Psychology, 126(4), 392-418.

  • Lupianez, J., Weaver, B., Tipper, S. P., & Madrid, E. (2001). The effects of practice on cueing in detection and discrimination tasks. Psicologica, 22(1), 1 -23.

  • Martella, D., Andrea, M., Luis, J.F., & Maria, C. (2014). Inhibition of return, but not facilitation, disappears under vigilance decrease due to sleep deprivation. Experimental Psychology, 61(2), 99-109.

  • Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3-25.

  • Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual attention. InH. BoumaandD. G. Bouhuis (Eds.), Preparatory states and processes (pp. 49-65).

  • Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Posner, M. I., Rafal, R D., Choate, L.,& Vaughan, J. (1985). Inhibition of return: Neural basis and function. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 211-218.

  • Snyder, J. J.,& Kingstone, A. (2001). Inhibition of return at multiple locations in visual search: When you see it and when you don't. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 1221-1237.

  • Singh, R., Upadhyay, A., & Singh, I. L. (2010). Voluntary orienting during vigilance task in young and old adults. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 36(2), 287-293.

  • Singh, R., & Upadhyay, A. (2016). Exogenous and endogenous cueing during vigilance in young and old adults. International Journal of Research in Education and Psychology,2(1),11-22.

  • Taylor, T. L., & Klein, R. M. (1998). On the cause and effects of inhibition of return. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 5, 625-643.

  • Tipper, S. P., & Weaver, B. (1998). The medium of attention: Location-based, object-based, or scene-based? In R. D. Wright (Ed.), Visual attention (pp. 77-107). New York: Oxford University Press.


Abstract Views: 345

PDF Views: 0




  • Effect of Cue and Task Type on Inhibition of Return in Sustained Attention Task

Abstract Views: 345  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Gagan Prit Kaur
Department of Psychology, R. S. K. D. P. G. College, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, India
Richa Singh
Department of Psychology, Vasanta College for Women (Krishanmurti Foundation of India) Rajghat Fort, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India

Abstract


Inhibition of return (IOR) is a robust phenomenon that refers to slow response at previously seen location than new location. IOR helps attention to orient towards novel or uncued locations. In the present study effect of cue (valid & invalid cue) and task type (Discrimination & detection tasks) is explored on the IOR phenomenon during sustained attention tasks. A 2 (Task type: Detection & Discrimination Tasks) x 2 (Cue Validity: Valid & Invalid) x 3 (time period: blocks of 10 min) mixed factorial design with repeated measure on the last two factors has been employed. Correct detection and RT were taken as performance measures. Results revealed significant effect of cue on correct detection. Participants detected more targets under valid cue condition than invalid cue in discrimination task in all three blocks while in detection task after the first block participants detected more targets under invalid cue than valid cue. RT results showed that response was facilitated under valid cue than invalid cue condition. Thus, the findings showed that IOR was not seen in discrimination as well as detection task. Probably the SOA level was not sufficient to generate the IOR. Small sample size and nature of task also may be responsible for not generating the IOR.

Keywords


Inhibition of Return, Cue, Detection Task, Discrimination Task.

References