ArticleExperimental brain research2012
Investigating a two causes theory of inhibition of return.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Saccadic landing positions reveal that eye movements are affected by distractor-based retrieval.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2022Article
- Exploring the temporal dynamics of inhibition of return using steady-state visual evoked potentials.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2020Article
- Sensory adaptation and inhibition of return: dissociating multiple inhibitory cueing effects.Experimental brain research · 2018Article
- The Time Course of Inhibition of Return: Evidence from Steady-State Visual Evoked Potentials.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
- Environment- and eye-centered inhibitory cueing effects are both observed after a methodological confound is eliminated.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- In search of a reliable electrophysiological marker of oculomotor inhibition of return.Psychophysiology · 2014Article
- Article
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
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23111426What 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.