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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jonathan W Harris, Christopher D Cowper-Smith, Raymond M Klein, David A Westwood
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