Page 1 of 9

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 10, No. 5

Publication Date: May 25, 2023

DOI:10.14738/assrj.105.14573.

Matsuda, Y. (2023). Inhibition of Return without Attentional Capture in the Traditional Spatial Cueing Paradigm. Advances in Social

Sciences Research Journal, 10(5). 1-9.

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

Inhibition of Return without Attentional Capture in the

Traditional Spatial Cueing Paradigm

Yukihisa Matsuda

Faculty of Nursing, Ishikawa Prefectural Nursing University, Kahoku, Japan

ABSTRACT

Numerous studies using the spatial cueing paradigm have revealed various

characteristics of attentional capture and inhibition of return (IOR). In my previous

study, attentional capture was not observed while IOR was observed. Although this

is evidence supporting the independence of attentional capture and IOR, I

considered the possibility of a problem with the SOA conditions. In the previous

study, the SOA condition for observing attentional capture was 150 msec, while

some other previous studies used the 100 msec SOA condition. This slight difference

may be the reason why attentional capture was not observed. The purpose of this

study was to determine if there is a difference between RTs in the 150 msec SOA

condition and RTs in the 100 msec SOA condition. Based on previous research, it

was expected that attentional functioning would not change significantly when SOA

was changed from 100 msec to 150 msec. The results showed that there was no

difference between RTs in the 150 msec SOA and the 100 msec SOA conditions.

Moreover, robust IORs were observed in the 100 msec SOA with the absence of

attentional capture. The results of this study provided additional evidence for the

idea presented that attentional capture and IOR are caused by different

mechanisms.

Keywords: Attentional capture, Facilitation effect, Inhibition of return, SOA.

INTRODUCTION

When a salient visual change occurs in the visual scene, the visuospatial attention is captured

at that location, and information processing is prioritized and facilitated. This phenomenon is

referred to as attentional capture. After a while (over 250 msec), attentional orienting to the

previously attended location is delayed rather than orienting to novel locations. This inhibitory

phenomenon is referred as inhibition of return [1-4].

The main findings on attentional capture and IOR have been made using the spatial cueing

paradigm [1, 5, 6]. In the cueing paradigm, two peripheral boxes (placeholders) are presented

with one box for each visual field near the fixation point. An abrupt change in luminance

(usually its increase) occurs as the cue. After the cue presentation, a target is presented at one

of the two peripheral boxes. Trials in which the cue and the target appeared at the same location

are classified as valid trials, and those in which they appeared at different locations (e.g., the

cue is presented at the left box and the target is presented at the right box or vice versa) are

classified as invalid trials. Usually target detection reaction time (RT) is the dependent measure.

RTs for detecting the target are shorter in the valid condition than those for the invalid

condition because target processing is facilitated by attention captured by the cue. If the time

Page 2 of 9

2

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 5, May-2023

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

interval between the onset of the cue and the onset of the target (stimulus onset asynchrony;

SOA) is greater than approximately 250 msec, the results are reversed: RTs in the valid

condition are longer than those in the invalid condition.

It has been observed that attentional capture phenomena occur when the SOA is approximately

250 msec or less. This phenomenon is considered robust, as supported by numerous previous

studies [3]. However, in my previous study [7], I and my colleague did not observe clear

attentional capture effects even at a short SOA of 150 msec. In Experiment 1 of our previous

study, where the cue presentation time was 30 msec, both mean RTs in the valid and the invalid

conditions showed similar level (340 msec), without any significant differences. Additionally,

in Experiment 2, when cue presentation time was varied at 50, 100, 200, and 300 msec, no

significant facilitation effects were observed at a short SOA of 150 msec with 50 and 100 msec

cue presentation time conditions. However, robust IOR was observed in both Experiment 1 and

Experiment 2. These results suggest that attentional capture and IOR are caused by different

mechanisms. In early studies, particularly those that have implemented both short and long

SOA conditions within the same experimental block, have reported both attentional capture

and IOR [8-13]. In this case, it is impossible to rule out the possibility that the preceding

attentional capture changes over time and leads to subsequent IOR. However, the results of my

previous study refute this possibility, as IOR was observed despite the absence of attentional

capture.

Based on these findings from my previous study [7], I consider the evidence to support the

independence of the mechanisms underlying attentional capture and inhibitory effects of

return. However, there remains some ambiguity regarding the duration of short SOA conditions,

as some previous studies have used an SOA of 150 msec to define short SOA [8, 9], while others

have used 100 msec [10-16] or both [17]. The possibility that attentional capture might have

been observed if short SOA was 100 msec cannot be completely ruled out, even if the situation

is unlikely. Considering the above, the present study aims to investigate this ambiguity by

conducting experiments with a 100 msec SOA condition, while keeping other experimental

conditions such as stimulus luminance, size, and distances between stimuli consistent with my

previous study.

METHODS

Participants

Nine participants (mean age 19.6 yeas; 7 males and 2 females) with normal or corrected-to- normal vision participated in the study. All participants were naive as to the purpose of the

experiment. Participants were paid 1000 yen/hour for their participation.

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects after the procedures were fully

explained. This study was performed according to the World Medical Association’s Declaration

of Helsinki and was approved by the Research Ethical Committee of Kanazawa Institute of

Technology.

Apparatus and Stimuli

The stimuli were presented on a 19-inch color screen monitor. Presentation of stimuli was

performed with an Intel Pentium 4 computer. A fixation cross (“+”; 0.5°) that was at the center

of the screen and two peripheral boxes (1.8° in height and width) located 9.3° to the left and

Page 3 of 9

3

Matsuda, Y. (2023). Inhibition of Return without Attentional Capture in the Traditional Spatial Cueing Paradigm. Advances in Social Sciences

Research Journal, 10(5). 1-9.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.105.14573

right of the fixation cross were presented on a black background. The fixation cross and two

boxes had a luminance of 4.3 cd/m2. The spatial cue consisted of a luminance increment of 4.3

cd/m2 to 43.8 cd/m2. The target was a small filled square (0.2°) which appeared in the center

of one of the two peripheral boxes. The luminance of the target was 43.8 cd/m2.

Procedure

The experiment took place in a dimly lit and sound-attenuated room. The participants were

seated facing a computer monitor at a distance of 63 cm. Their heads were stabilized with an

adjustable chinrest, and the computer keyboard was placed in front of the participants.

Each trial started with the presentation of the fixation cross and two peripheral boxes against

a black background (Figure 1). A short warning tone was presented at the beginning of the trial

and was followed by the fixation cross and two peripheral boxes (Figure 1, panel A). The stimuli

were presented for 1500 msec, after which the peripheral cue was presented for 50 msec at

either the left or right peripheral box (Figure 1, panel B). There were two sets of SOA conditions.

The first set included SOAs of 100, 450, 800 msec, and the second set included SOAs of 150, 450,

800 msec. These two sets were run in separate blocks, and the order was random for each

participant. The SOA between the cue and the target was randomly selected among three SOAs.

The target could appear at either the left or right peripheral box after the peripheral cue was

presented (Figure 1, panel D). The target remained on the screen until the key was pressed or

1500 msec had elapsed. A short tone was presented as a feedback signal for key pressing. The

intertrial interval was 1500 msec.

Figure 1. Illustrations of the trial sequence using in the experiment.

Participants were instructed to maintain fixation on the central fixation cross during each trial

and to ignore the onset of the peripheral cue. Then, they were instructed to press the space bar

with their right hand as quickly as possible when the target appeared. RT was measured from

the onset of the target to response execution.

Forty percent of all the trials were valid, another 40% were invalid, and the remaining trials

(20%) were catch trials in which no target appeared. If participants responded during a catch