Inhibition of object identity in inhibition of return: Implications for encoding and retrieving inhibitory processes

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 553-558

  Grison, Sarah ^a   Paul, Matthew A ^b   Kessler, Klaus ^c   Tipper, Steven P ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c HEINRICH HEINE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 25644439202     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193804     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. DRIVER, J., DAVIS, G., RUSSELL, C., TURATTO, M., & FREEMAN, E. (2001). Segmentation, attention, and phenomenal visual objects. Cognition, 80, 61-95.
2. GRISON, S., KESSLER, K., PAUL, M. A., JORDAN, H., & TIPPER, S. P. (2005). Object- and location-based inhibition in goal directed action: Inhibition of return reveals behavioural and anatomical dissociations and interactions with memory processes. In G. W. Humphreys & M. J. Riddoch (Eds.), Attention in action: Advances from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 171-207). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
3. GRISON, S., TIPPER, S. P., & HEWITT, O. (in press). Long-term negative priming: Support for retrieval of prior attentional processes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
4. ORISON, S., TIPPER, S. P., & KRAMER, A. F. (2005). Dissociations in inhibited representations in short- and long-term inhibition of return: Implications for memory inhibition. Manuscript submitted for publication.
5. JORDAN, H., & TIPPER, S. P. (1998). Object-based inhibition of return in static displays. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 504-509.
6. KAHNEMAN, D., TREISMAN, A., & GIBBS, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object-files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175-219.
7. KANWISHER, N. (1998). The modular structure of human visual recognition: Evidence from functional imaging. In F. [I. M.] Craik, M. Robert, & M. Sabourin (Eds.), Advances in psychological science: Vol. 2. Biological and cognitive aspects (pp. 199-213). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
8. KESSLER, K., & TIPPER, S. P. (2003). Retrieval of inhibitory attentional processes: The impact of visual field, object-identity, and memory dynamics. Manuscript submitted for publication.
9. KLEIN, R. [M.] (1988). Inhibitory tagging system facilitates visual search. Nature, 334, 430-431.
10. KLEIN, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 138-147.
11. KLEIN, R. M., & MACINNES, W. J. (1999). Inhibition of return is a foraging facilitator in visual search. Psychological Science, 10, 346-352.
12. LEEK, E. C., REPPA, I., & TIPPER, S. P. (2003). Inhibition of return for objects and locations in static displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 388-395.
13. LIST, A., & ROBERTSON, L. C. (2001). Inhibition of return and object-based attention. Manuscript submitted for publication.
14. LUPIÁÑEZ, J., TUDELA, P., & RUEDA, C. (1999). Inhibitory control in attentional orientation: A review about inhibition of return. Cognitiva, 11, 23-44.
15. MÜLLER, H. J., & VON MÜHLENEN, A. (2000). Probing distractor inhibition in visual search: Inhibition of return. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 1591-1605.
16. NEILL, W. T. (1997). Episodic retrieval in negative priming and repetition priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 1291-3105.
17. PAUL, M. A., & TIPPER, S. P. (2003). Object-based representations facilitate memory for inhibitory processes. Experimental Brain Research, 148, 283-289.
18. POSNER, M. I., & COHEN, Y. A. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance X: Control of language processes (pp. 531-556). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. PSYCHOLOGY SOFTWARE TOOLS (2000). E-Prime (Version 1.1) [Computer software]. Pittsburgh, PA: Author.
20. RAFAL, R. D., CALABRESI, P., BRENNAN, C., & SCIOLTO, T. (1989). Saccade preparation inhibits reorienting to recently attended locations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 15, 673-685.
21. REPPA, I., & LEEK, E. C. (2003). The modulation of inhibition of return by object-internal structure: Implications for theories of object-based artentional selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 493-502.
22. SAPIR, A., SOROKER, N., BERGER, A., & HENIK, A. (1999). Inhibition of return in spatial attention: Direct evidence for collicular generation. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 1053-1054.
23. SCHENDEL, K. L., ROBERTSON, L. C., & TREISMAN, A. (2001). Objects and their locations in exogenous cuing. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 577-594.
24. TAKEDA, Y., & YAGI, A. (2000). Inhibitory tagging in visual search can be found if search stimuli remain visible. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 927-934.
25. TIPPER, S. P. (2001). Does negative priming reflect inhibitory mechanisms? A review and integration of conflicting views. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54 A, 321-343.
26. TIPPER, S. P., DRIVER, J., & WEAVER, B. (1991). Object-centred inhibition of return of visual attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 289-298.
27. TIPPER, S. P., GRISON, S., & KESSLER, K. (2003). Long-term inhibition of return of attention. Psychological Science, 14, 19-25.
28. TIPPER, S. P., JORDAN, H., & WEAVER, B. (1999). Scene-based and object-centered inhibition of return: Evidence for dual orienting mechanisms. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 50-60.
29. TIPPER, S. P., RAFAL, R., REUTER-LORENZ, P. A., STARRVELDT, Y., RO, T., EGLY, R., DANZINGER, S., & WEAVER, B.(1997). Object-based facilitation and inhibition from visual orienting in the human split-brain. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 23, 1522-1532.
30. YIN, R. K. (1969). Looking at upside down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 141-145.