ArticlePloS one2012
Dissociable spatial and temporal effects of inhibition of return.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- RT Slowing to Valid Cues on a Reflexive Attention Task in Children and Young Adults.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
- Revisiting the global effect and inhibition of return.Experimental brain research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the relative suppression of processing at locations that have recently been attended. It is frequently explored using a spatial cueing paradigm and is characterized by slower responses to cued than to uncued locations. The current study investigates the impact of IOR on overt visual orienting involving saccadic eye movements. Using a spatial cueing paradigm, our experiments have demonstrated that at a cue-target onset asynchrony (CTOA) of 400 ms saccades to the vicinity of cued locations are not only delayed (temporal cost) but also biased away (spatial effect). Both of these effects are basically no longer present at a CTOA of 1200 ms. At a shorter 200 ms CTOA, the spatial effect becomes stronger while the temporal cost is replaced by a temporal benefit. These findings suggest that IOR has a spatial effect that is dissociable from its temporal effect. Simulations using a neural field model of the superior colliculus (SC) revealed that a theory relying on short-term depression (STD) of the input pathway can explain most, but not all, temporal and spatial effects of IOR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.