Further evidence against a momentum explanation for IOR.
Reaction times to targets presented in the same location as a preceding cue are greater than those to targets presented opposite the cued location. This observation can be explained as a result of inhibition at the attended location (IOR), or as facilitation at the location opposite the cue (opposit...
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2015-01-01
|
Series: | PLoS ONE |
Online Access: | http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4400106?pdf=render |
id |
doaj-6a8b9d0af00d4e629083a488f2bdc7d8 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-6a8b9d0af00d4e629083a488f2bdc7d82020-11-25T01:21:52ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032015-01-01104e012366610.1371/journal.pone.0123666Further evidence against a momentum explanation for IOR.Jonathan W HarrisChristopher D Cowper-SmithRaymond M KleinDavid A WestwoodReaction times to targets presented in the same location as a preceding cue are greater than those to targets presented opposite the cued location. This observation can be explained as a result of inhibition at the attended location (IOR), or as facilitation at the location opposite the cue (opposite facilitation effect or OFE). Past research has demonstrated that IOR is observed reliably, whereas OFE is observed only occasionally. The present series of four experiments allows us to determine whether or not OFE can be explained by eye movements as suggested by previous authors. Participants' eye movements were monitored as they were presented with an array of four placeholders aligned with the four cardinal axes. Exogenous cues and targets were presented successively. Participants (N=37) completed either: i.) cue-manual and cue-saccade experiments, ignoring the cue and then responding with a keypress or saccade, respectively, or ii.) manual-manual and saccade-saccade experiments, responding to both the cue and the target with a keypress or saccade respectively. Results demonstrated a reliable IOR effect in each of the four experiments (reaction time greater for same versus adjacent and opposite cue-target trials). None of the four experiments demonstrated evidence of an OFE (reaction times were not significantly lower for opposite versus adjacent cue-target trials). These results are inconsistent with a momentum-based account of cue-target task performance, and furthermore suggest that the OFE cannot be attributed to occasional eye movements to the cue and/or target in previous studies.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4400106?pdf=render |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Jonathan W Harris Christopher D Cowper-Smith Raymond M Klein David A Westwood |
spellingShingle |
Jonathan W Harris Christopher D Cowper-Smith Raymond M Klein David A Westwood Further evidence against a momentum explanation for IOR. PLoS ONE |
author_facet |
Jonathan W Harris Christopher D Cowper-Smith Raymond M Klein David A Westwood |
author_sort |
Jonathan W Harris |
title |
Further evidence against a momentum explanation for IOR. |
title_short |
Further evidence against a momentum explanation for IOR. |
title_full |
Further evidence against a momentum explanation for IOR. |
title_fullStr |
Further evidence against a momentum explanation for IOR. |
title_full_unstemmed |
Further evidence against a momentum explanation for IOR. |
title_sort |
further evidence against a momentum explanation for ior. |
publisher |
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
series |
PLoS ONE |
issn |
1932-6203 |
publishDate |
2015-01-01 |
description |
Reaction times to targets presented in the same location as a preceding cue are greater than those to targets presented opposite the cued location. This observation can be explained as a result of inhibition at the attended location (IOR), or as facilitation at the location opposite the cue (opposite facilitation effect or OFE). Past research has demonstrated that IOR is observed reliably, whereas OFE is observed only occasionally. The present series of four experiments allows us to determine whether or not OFE can be explained by eye movements as suggested by previous authors. Participants' eye movements were monitored as they were presented with an array of four placeholders aligned with the four cardinal axes. Exogenous cues and targets were presented successively. Participants (N=37) completed either: i.) cue-manual and cue-saccade experiments, ignoring the cue and then responding with a keypress or saccade, respectively, or ii.) manual-manual and saccade-saccade experiments, responding to both the cue and the target with a keypress or saccade respectively. Results demonstrated a reliable IOR effect in each of the four experiments (reaction time greater for same versus adjacent and opposite cue-target trials). None of the four experiments demonstrated evidence of an OFE (reaction times were not significantly lower for opposite versus adjacent cue-target trials). These results are inconsistent with a momentum-based account of cue-target task performance, and furthermore suggest that the OFE cannot be attributed to occasional eye movements to the cue and/or target in previous studies. |
url |
http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4400106?pdf=render |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT jonathanwharris furtherevidenceagainstamomentumexplanationforior AT christopherdcowpersmith furtherevidenceagainstamomentumexplanationforior AT raymondmklein furtherevidenceagainstamomentumexplanationforior AT davidawestwood furtherevidenceagainstamomentumexplanationforior |
_version_ |
1725128832035323904 |