ArticleScientific reports2020
Behavioral and neuronal study of inhibition of return in barn owls.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Towards a neuroethological approach to consciousness.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
- The barn owl in systems and behavioral neuroscience: Progress and promise.Current opinion in neurobiology · 2025Review
- Neuronal correlates of endogenous selective attention in the endbrain of crows.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Volitional spatial attention is lateralized in crows.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Intracortical recordings reveal vision-to-action cortical gradients driving human exogenous attention.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Costs and benefits of voluntary attention in crows.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Deviance Distraction and Stimulus-Specific Adaptation in the Somatosensory Cortex Reduce with Experience.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023Article
- Exogenous and endogenous spatial attention in crows.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Stimulus-driven visual attention in mice.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- The Ecological View of Selective Attention.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2022Article
- Evolution and function of neurocognitive systems in non-human animals.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Orienting our view of the superior colliculus: specializations and general functions.Current opinion in neurobiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inhibition of return (IOR) is the reduction of detection speed and/or detection accuracy of a target in a recently attended location. This phenomenon, which has been discovered and studied thoroughly in humans, is believed to reflect a brain mechanism for controlling the allocation of spatial attention in a manner that enhances efficient search. Findings showing that IOR is robust, apparent at a very early age and seemingly dependent on midbrain activity suggest that IOR is a universal attentional mechanism in vertebrates. However, studies in non-mammalian species are scarce. To explore this hypothesis comparatively, we tested for IOR in barn owls (Tyto alba) using the classical Posner cueing paradigm. Two barn owls were trained to initiate a trial by fixating on the center of a computer screen and then turning their gaze to the location of a target. A short, non-informative cue appeared before the target, either at a location predicting the target (valid) or a location not predicting the target (invalid). In one barn owl, the response times (RT) to the valid targets compared to the invalid targets shifted from facilitation (lower RTs) to inhibition (higher RTs) when increasing the time lag between the cue and the target. The second owl mostly failed to maintain fixation and responded to the cue before the target onset. However, when including in the analysis only the trials in which the owl maintained fixation, an inhibition in the valid trials could be detected. To search for the neural correlates of IOR, we recorded multiunit responses in the optic tectum (OT) of four head-fixed owls passively viewing a cueing paradigm as in the behavioral experiments. At short cue to target lags (<100 ms), neural responses to the target in the receptive field (RF) were usually enhanced if the cue appeared earlier inside the RF (valid) and were suppressed if the cue appeared earlier outside the RF (invalid). This was reversed at longer lags: neural responses were suppressed in the valid conditions and were unaffected in the invalid conditions. The findings support the notion that IOR is a basic mechanism in the evolution of vertebrate behavior and suggest that the effect appears as a result of the interaction between lateral and forward inhibition in the tectal circuitry.
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.