Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Two spatially separated attention systems in the visual field: evidence from inhibition of return

  • Research Report
  • Published:
Cognitive Processing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It has been demonstrated that the human visual field shows some functional inhomogeneities, in particular when the central and perifoveal regions are compared to the more peripheral regions. The present study examined this inhomogeneity by examining the effect of stimulus eccentricity on inhibition of return (IOR), a phenomenon that biases our attention towards novel locations against returning it back to previously attended locations. Eighteen subjects were examined in a visual detection task, in which a target appeared randomly following a nonpredictive spatial cue in the visual field. The eccentricities of the cues and targets were systematically manipulated from 5° to 30° with 5° increments. Results showed that response times to targets that appeared at cued locations were significantly slower than those at uncued locations for all stimulus eccentricities, demonstrating the IOR effects. However, response times at cued locations increased significantly when stimulus eccentricity shifted from 15° to 20°, leading to a much stronger IOR effect at more peripheral regions compared to central and perifoveal regions, indicating a functional dissociation between these two regions of the visual field. Possible neural mechanisms underlying this dissociation are discussed, and two attention systems modulating the two functional regions of the visual field are put forward to best account the present finding implicating in particular midbrain mechanism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrams RA, Dobkin RS (1994) Inhibition of return: effects of attentional cuing on eye movement latencies. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 20:467–477

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bao Y, Zhou J, Fu L (2004) Aging and the time course of inhibition of return in a static environment. Acta Neurobiol Exp 64:403–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell AH, Fecteau JH, Munoz DP (2004) Using auditory and visual stimuli to investigate the behavioural and neuronal consequences of reflexive covert orienting. J Neurophysiol 91:2172–2184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett PJ, Pratt J (2001) The spatial distribution of inhibition of return. Psychol Sci 12:76–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Berlucchi G, Tassinari G, Marzi CA, Stefano M Di (1989) Spatial distribution of the inhibitory effect of peripheral non-informative cues on simple reaction time to non-fixated visual targets. Neuropsychologia 27:201–221

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Collie A, Maruff P, Yucel M, Danckert J, Currie J (2000) Spatiotemporal distribution of facilitation and inhibition of return arising from the reflexive orienting of covert attention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26:1733–1745

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel PM, Whitteridge D (1961) The representation of the visual field on the cerebral cortex in monkeys. J Physiol 159:203–221

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Danziger S, Ward R, Owen V, Rafal R (2002) The effects of unilateral pulvinar damage in humans on reflexive orienting and filtering of irrelevant information. Behav Neurol 13:95–104

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dorris MC, Klein RM, Everling S, Munoz DP (2002) Contribution of the primate superior colliculus to inhibition of return. J Cogn Neurosci 14:1256–1263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frost D, Pöppel E (1976) Different programming modes of human saccadic eye movements as a function of stimulus eccentricity: indications of a functional subdivision of the visual field. Bio Cybern 23:39–48

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Han S, Jiang Y, Gu H, Rao H, Mao L, Cui Y, Zhai R (2004) The role of human parietal cortex in attention networks. Brain 127:650–659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Handy TC, Khoe W (2005) Attention and sensory gain control: a peripheral visual process? J Cogn Neurosci 17:1936–1949

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hubel DH, LeVay S, Wiesel TN (1975) Mode of termination of retinotectal fibers in macaque monkey: an autoradiographic study. Brain Res 96:25–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kingstone A, Pratt J (1999) Inhibition of return is composed of attentional and oculomotor processes. Percept Psychophys 61:1046–1054

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Klein R (1988) Inhibitory tagging system facilitates visual search. Nature 334:430–431

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lepsien J, Pollmann S (2002) Covert reorienting and inhibition of return: an event-related fMRI study. J Cogn Neurosci 14:127–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lupiáñez J, Milliken B, Solano C, Weaver B, Tipper SP (2001) On the strategic modulation of the time course of facilitation and inhibition of return. Q J Exp Psychol 54A:753–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupiáñez J, Decaix C, Siéroff E, Chokron S, Milliken B, Bartolomeo P (2004) Independent effects of endogenous and exogenous spatial cueing: inhibition of return at endogenously attended target locations. Exp Brain Res 159:447–457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer AR, Seidenberg M, Dorflinger JM, Rao SM (2004) An event-related fMRI study of exogenous orienting: supporting evidence for the cortical basis of inhibition of return? J Cogn Neurosci 16:1262–1271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maylor EA, Hockey R (1985) Inhibitory component of externally controlled covert orienting in visual space. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 11:777–787

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Popovic Z, Sjöstrand J (2001) Resolution, separation of retinal ganglion cells, and cortical magnification in humans. Vision Res 41:1313–1319

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pöppel E (1997) A hierarchical model of temporal perception. Trends Cogn Sci 1:56–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pöppel E, Harvey LO Jr (1973) Light-difference threshold and subjective brightness in the periphery of the visual field. Psychol Forsch 34:145–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pöppel E, Richards WA (1974) Light sensitivity in cortical scotomata contralateral to small islands of blindness. Exp Brain Res 21:125–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pöppel E, Held R, Frost D (1973) Residual visual function after brain wounds involving the central visual pathways in man. Nature 243:295–296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pöppel E, Von Cramon D, Backmund H (1975) Eccentricity-specific dissociation of visual functions in patients with lesions of the central visual pathways. Nature 256:489–490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Posner MI, Cohen Y (1984) Components of visual orienting. In: Bouma H, Bouwhuis DG (eds) Attention and performance X. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 531–556

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner MI, Rafal RD, Choate LS, Vaughan J (1985) Inhibition of return: neural basis and function. Cogn Neuropsychol 2:211–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt J, Adam JJ, McAuliffe J (1998) The spatial relationship between cues and targets mediates inhibition of return. Can J Exp Psychol 52:213–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt J, Spalek TM, Bradshaw F (1999) The time to detect targets at inhibited and noninhibited locations: preliminary evidence for attentional momentum. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:730–746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rovamo J, Virsu V (1979) An estimation and application of the human cortical magnification factor. Exp Brain Res 37:495–510

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sapir A, Soroker N, Berger A, Henik A (1999) Inhibition of return in spatial attention: direct evidence for collicular generation. Nat Neurosci 2:1053–1054

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sapir A, Hayes A, Henik A, Danziger S, Rafal R (2004) Parietal lobe lesions disrupt saccadic remapping of inhibitory location tagging. J Cog Neurosci 16:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt WC (1996) “Inhibition of return” without visual input. Neuropsychologia 34:943–952

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Singer W, Zihl J, Pöppel E (1977) Subcortical control of visual thresholds in humans: evidence for modality-specific and retinotopically organized mechanisms of selective attention. Exp Brain Res 29:173–190

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sprague JM (1966) Interaction of cortex and superior colliculus in mediation of visually guided behavior in the cat. Science 153:1544–1547

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor TL, Klein RM (1998) On the causes and effects of inhibition of return. Psychonom Bull Rev 5:625–643

    Google Scholar 

  • Tassinari G, Aglioti S, Chelazzi L, Marzi CA, Berlucchi G (1987) Distribution in the visual field of the costs of voluntarily allocated attention and of the inhibitory after-effects of covert orienting. Neuropsychologia 25:55–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tipper SP, Weaver B, Jerreat LM, Burak AL (1994) Object-based and environment-based inhibition of return of visual attention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 20:478–499

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Van Buren JM (1963) The retinal ganglion cell layer. Thomas, Springfield

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson ME, Toyne MJ (1970) Retino-tectal and cortical-tectal projections in Macaca mulatta. Brain Res 24:395–406

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was partially supported by the MOE Project of Key Research Institute of Humanities and Social Science in University (Grant No. 01JAZJDXLX002) and by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). We thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. We also thank Jianzhong Zhou, Xiaoxi Xiao, and Xiaoying Wang for their technical support on computer programming.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Peking University, 5 Yiheyuan Road, Beijing, 100871, People’s Republic of China

    Yan Bao

  2. Institute of Medical Psychology and Human Science Center, Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Goethestr. 31, 80336, München, Germany

    Ernst Pöppel

Authors
  1. Yan Bao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ernst Pöppel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yan Bao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bao, Y., Pöppel, E. Two spatially separated attention systems in the visual field: evidence from inhibition of return. Cogn Process 8, 37–44 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-006-0151-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-006-0151-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation