On the nature of the delayed “inhibitory” Cueing effects generated by uninformative arrows at fixation

• Published in: Psychonomic bulletin & review Vol. 20; no. 3; pp. 593 - 600
• Main Authors: Hilchey, Matthew D., Satel, Jason, Ivanoff, Jason, Klein, Raymond M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer-Verlag 01.06.2013; Springer; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Activity levels. Psychomotricity; Behavioral Science and Psychology; Biological and medical sciences; Brief Report; Cognition & reasoning; Cognitive Psychology; Cues; Fixation, Ocular; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Humans; Inhibition (Psychology); Pattern Recognition, Visual - physiology; Perception; Psychology; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychophysiology; Psychomotor Performance - physiology; Reaction Time - physiology; Repetition Priming - physiology; Studies; Vigilance. Attention. Sleep; Vision; Visual Perception - physiology; Automatic response activation; Cuing; Response suppression; Priming; Negative compatibility effect; Inhibition of return; Arrows; Human; Priming effect; Cognition; Activation; Experimental study; Time lag; Automatic processing; Visual cue; Perception; Visual attention
• ISSN: 1069-9384; 1531-5320
• DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0376-5

When the interval between a spatially uninformative arrow and a visual target is short (<500 ms), response times (RTs) are fastest when the arrow points to the target. When this interval exceeds 500 ms, there is a near-universal absence of an effect of the arrow on RTs. Contrary to this expected pattern of results, Taylor and Klein (J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26:1639–1656, 2000 ) observed that RTs were slowest when a to-be-localized visual target occurred in the direction of a fixated arrow presented 1 s earlier (i.e., an “inhibitory” Cueing effect; ICE). Here we examined which factor(s) may have allowed the arrow to generate an ICE. Our experiments indicated that the ICE was a side effect of subthreshold response activation attributable to a task-induced association between the arrow and a keypress response. Because the cause of this ICE was more closely related to subthreshold keypress activation than to oculomotor activation, we considered that the effect might be more similar to the negative compatibility effect (NCE) than to inhibition of return (IOR). This similarity raises the possibility that classical IOR, when caused by a spatially uninformative peripheral onset event and measured by a keypress response to a subsequent onset, might represent, in part, another instance of an NCE. Serendipitously, we discovered that context (i.e., whether an uninformative peripheral onset could occur at the time of an uninformative central arrow) ultimately determined whether the “inhibitory” aftermath of automatic response activation would affect output or input pathways.