ArticleJournal of cognition2025
As Time Goes By: Event File Decay Does Not Unleash Inhibition of Return.
Article in Journal of cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Touching Difference: Evidence for Stimulus-Response Binding Effects in Tactile Detection and Localization Performance but Not in Their Visual Counterparts.Journal of cognition · 2026Article
- When affordances are not universal: The negative compatibility effect is modulated by task type and spatial association.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
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 a location repetition cost typically observed when signaling the detection of or localizing sequentially presented stimuli repeating or changing their location. In discrimination tasks, however, IOR is often reduced or even absent; here, effects of binding and retrieval are thought to take place. Information is bound into an event file, which upon feature repetition causes retrieval, leading to partial repetition costs. It is assumed that the presence of retrieval-based effects masks the observation of IOR. Yet, some evidence suggests that long intervals between stimuli can lead to IOR in tasks in which usually mostly binding effects are observed. We hypothesized that with an increasing interval between prime response and probe onset (response stimulus interval, RSI), event files will decay and decreasingly mask IOR. In turn, IOR should be strongest at longest intervals. In the current study, participants discriminated the color of stimuli repeating or changing their location. Crucially, we varied the RSI from 500 ms to 3000 ms, trial-wise (Experiment 1) and block-wise (Experiment 2). We observed overall binding effects that were reduced with increasing RSI; these effects were slightly stronger when presented block-wise. IOR was overall absent (Experiment 1) or weak (Experiment 2) and did not emerge with increasing RSI. While event file decay took place, it did not unleash IOR. Rather, these results suggest that retrieval-based effects do not simply mask but overwrite IOR when manually responding. The observations of IOR with long intervals are discussed in the context of overall fast responding.
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.