Have a personal or library account? Click to login
As Time Goes By: Event File Decay Does Not Unleash Inhibition of Return Cover

As Time Goes By: Event File Decay Does Not Unleash Inhibition of Return

Journal of Cognition
Volume 8 (2025): Issue 1
By: Lars-Michael Schöpper and  Christian Frings  
Open Access
|Jan 2025

References

  1. 1Avery, B., Cowper-Smith, C. D., & Westwood, D. A. (2015). Spatial interactions between consecutive manual responses. Experimental Brain Research, 233, 3283–3290. 10.1007/s00221-015-4396-4
    Back to article
  2. 2Berger, A., Henik, A., & Rafal, R. (2005). Competition between endogenous and exogenous orienting of visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(2), 207–221. 10.1037/0096-3445.134.2.207
    Back to article
  3. 3Berlucchi, G. (2006). Inhibition of return: A phenomenon in search of a mechanism and a better name. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23(7), 1065–1074. 10.1080/02643290600588426
    Back to article
  4. 4Chao, H. F., & Hsiao, F.-S. (2021). Location-response binding and inhibition of return in a detection task. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 83(5), 1992–2001. 10.3758/s13414-021-02283-4
    Back to article
  5. 5Chao, H.-F., Hsiao, F.-S., & Huang, S.-C. (2022). Binding of features and responses in inhibition of return: The effects of task demand. Journal of Cognition, 5(1): 49, 1–20. 10.5334/joc.247
    Back to article
  6. 6Chao, H. F., Kuo, C.-Y., Chen, M. S., & Hsiao, F.-S. (2020). Contextual similarity between successive targets modulates inhibition of return in the target-target paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(2052), 1–8. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02052
    Back to article
  7. 7Davelaar, E. J., & Stevens, J. (2009). Sequential dependencies in the Eriksen flanker task: A direct comparison of two competing accounts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(1), 121–126. 10.3758/PBR.16.1.121
    Back to article
  8. 8Ding, Y., He, T., Satel, J., & Wang, Z. (2016). Inhibitory cueing effects following manual and saccadic responses to arrow cues. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78, 1020–1029. 10.3758/s13414-016-1079-6
    Back to article
  9. 9Dukewich, K. R., & Klein, R. M. (2015). Inhibition of return: A phenomenon in search of a definition and a theoretical framework. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 1647–1658. 10.3758/s13414-015-0835-3
    Back to article
  10. 10Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. 10.3758/BF03193146
    Back to article
  11. 11Frings, C. (2011). On the decay of distractor-response episodes. Experimental Psychology, 58(2), 125–131. 10.1027/1618-3169/a000077
    Back to article
  12. 12Frings, C., Beste, C., Benini, E., Möller, M., Dignath, D., Giesen, C., Hommel, B., Kiesel, A., Koch, I., Kunde, W., Mayr, S., Mocke, V., Moeller, B., Münchau, A., Parmar, J., Pastötter, B., Pfister, R., Philipp, A., Qiu, R., … Schmalbrock, P. (2024). Consensus definitions of perception-action-integration in action control. Communications Psychology, 2, 7. 10.1038/s44271-023-00050-9
    Back to article
  13. 13Frings, C., Foerster, A., Moeller, B., Pastötter, B., & Pfister, R. (2024). The relation between learning and stimulus–response binding. Psychological Review, 131(5), 1290–1296. 10.1037/rev0000449
    Back to article
  14. 14Frings, C., Hommel, B., Koch, I., Rothermund, K., Dignath, D., Giesen, C., Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., Mayr, S., Moeller, B., Möller, M., Pfister, R., & Philipp, A. (2020). Binding and Retrieval in Action Control (BRAC). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(5), 375–387. 10.1016/j.tics.2020.02.004
    Back to article
  15. 15Frings, C., Moeller, B., Beste, C., Münchau, A., & Pastötter, B. (2022). Stimulus decay functions in action control. Scientific Reports, 12, 20139. 10.1038/s41598-022-24499-6
    Back to article
  16. 16Frings, C., Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2007). Distractor repetitions retrieve previous responses to targets. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(10), 1367–1377. 10.1080/17470210600955645
    Back to article
  17. 17Gabay, S., Chica, A. B., Charras, P., Funes, M. J., & Henik, A. (2012). Cue and target processing modulate the onset of inhibition of return. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(1), 42–52. 10.1037/a0023675
    Back to article
  18. 18Geissler, C. F., Schöpper, L.-M., Engesser, A. F., Beste, C., Münchau, A., & Frings, C. (2024). Turning the light switch on binding: Prefrontal activity for binding and retrieval in action control. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 36(1), 95–106. 10.1162/jocn_a_02071
    Back to article
  19. 19Henson, R. N., Eckstein, D., Waszak, F., Frings, C., & Horner, A. J. (2014). Stimulus-response bindings in priming. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 376–384. 10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.004
    Back to article
  20. 20Hilchey, M. D., Klein, R. M., & Satel, J. (2014). Returning to “inhibition of return” by dissociating long-term oculomotor IOR from short-term sensory adaptation and other nonoculomotor “inhibitory” cueing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(4), 1603–1616. 10.1037/a0036859
    Back to article
  21. 21Hilchey, M. D., Rajsic, J., Huffman, G., Klein, R. M., & Pratt, J. (2018). Dissociating orienting biases from integration effects with eye movements. Psychological Science, 29(3), 328–339. 10.1177/0956797617734021
    Back to article
  22. 22Hilchey, M. D., Rajsic, J., Huffman, G., & Pratt, J. (2017). Intervening response events between identification targets do not always turn repetition benefits into repetition costs. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(3), 807–819. 10.3758/s13414-016-1262-9
    Back to article
  23. 23Hilchey, M. D., Rajsic, J., & Pratt, J. (2020). When do response-related episodic retrieval effects co-occur with inhibition of return? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(6), 3013–3032. 10.3758/s13414-020-02020-3
    Back to article
  24. 24Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5(1–2), 183–216. 10.1080/713756773
    Back to article
  25. 25Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 494–500. 10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.007
    Back to article
  26. 26Hommel, B. (2007). Feature integration across perception and action: Event files affect response choice. Psychological Research, 71(1), 42–63. 10.1007/s00426-005-0035-1
    Back to article
  27. 27Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136(2), 189–202. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.04.011
    Back to article
  28. 28Hommel, B., & Frings, C. (2020). The disintegration of event files over time: Decay or interference? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27, 751–757. 10.3758/s13423-020-01738-3
    Back to article
  29. 29Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849–937. 10.1017/S0140525X01000103
    Back to article
  30. 30Horoufchin, H., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2011). The dissipating task-repetition benefit in cued task switching: Task-set decay or temporal distinctiveness? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(2), 455–472. 10.1037/a0020557
    Back to article
  31. 31Hu, F. K., Samuel, A. G., & Chan, A. S. (2011). Eliminating inhibition of return by changing salient nonspatial attributes in a complex environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1), 35–50. 10.1037/a0021091
    Back to article
  32. 32Huffman, G., Hilchey, M. D., & Pratt, J. (2018). Feature integration in basic detection and localization tasks: Insights from the attentional orienting literature. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(6), 1333–1341. 10.3758/s13414-018-1535-6
    Back to article
  33. 33Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 175–219. 10.1016/0010-0285(92)90007-O
    Back to article
  34. 34Kingstone, A., & Pratt, J. (1999). Inhibition of return is composed of attentional and oculomotor processes. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(6), 1046–1054. 10.3758/BF03207612
    Back to article
  35. 35Klein, R. (2004). Orienting and inhibition of return. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 545–559). MIT Press.
    Back to article
  36. 36Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 138–147. 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01452-2
    Back to article
  37. 37Klein, R. M., & Hilchey, M. D. (2011). Oculomotor inhibition of return. In S. P. Liversedge, I. D. Gilchrist, & S. Everling (Eds.), The oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 471–492). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199539789.013.0026
    Back to article
  38. 38Klein, R. M., & Redden, R. S. (2018). Two “inhibitions of return” bias orienting differently. In T. L. Hubbard (Ed.), Spatial Biases in Perception and Cognition (pp. 295–306). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316651247.021
    Back to article
  39. 39Koch, I., Frings, C., & Schuch, S. (2018). Explaining response-repetition effects in task switching: Evidence from switching cue modality suggests episodic binding and response inhibition. Psychological Research, 82(3), 570–579. 10.1007/s00426-017-0847-9
    Back to article
  40. 40Lamy, D.*, Frings, C.*, & Liesefeld, H. R. (In press). Building bridges: Visual search meets action control via inter-trial sequence effects. Review of General Psychology. 10.1177/10892680241232626
    Back to article
  41. 41Lippa, Y., & Adam, J. J. (2001). An explanation of orthogonal S-R compatibility effects that vary with hand or response position: The end-state comfort hypothesis. Perception & Psychophysics, 63(1), 156–174. 10.3758/BF03200510
    Back to article
  42. 42Lupiáñez, J. (2010). Inhibition of return. In A. C. Nobre, & J. T. Coull (Eds.), Attention and Time (pp. 17–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199563456.003.0002
    Back to article
  43. 43Lupiáñez, J., Martín-Arévalo, E., & Chica, A. B. (2013). Is inhibition of return due to attentional disengagement or to a detection cost? The detection cost theory of IOR. Psicológica, 34, 221–252.
    Back to article
  44. 44Lupiáñez, J., Milán, E. G., Tornay, F. J., Madrid, E., & Tudela, P. (1997). Does IOR occur in discrimination tasks? Yes, it does, but later. Perception & Psychophysics, 59(8), 1241–1254. 10.3758/BF03214211
    Back to article
  45. 45Lupiáñez, J., Milliken, B., Solano, C., Weaver, B., & Tipper, S. P. (2001). On the strategic modulation of the time course of facilitation and inhibition of return. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 54A(3), 753–773. 10.1080/02724980042000453
    Back to article
  46. 46Milliken, B., Tipper, S. P., Houghton, G., & Lupiáñez, J. (2000). Attending, ignoring, and repetition: On the relation between negative priming and inhibition of return. Perception & Psychophysics, 62(6), 1280–1296. 10.3758/BF03212130
    Back to article
  47. 47Moeller, B., & Frings, C. (2021). Response-response bindings do not decay for six seconds after integration: A case for bindings’ relevance in hierarchical action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 47(4), 508–517. 10.1037/xhp0000897
    Back to article
  48. 48Mondor, T. A., & Leboe, L. C. (2008). Stimulus and response repetition effects in the detection of sounds: Evidence of obligatory retrieval and use of a prior event. Psychological Research, 72, 183–191. 10.1007/s00426-006-0095-x
    Back to article
  49. 49Nishimura, A., & Yokosawa, K. (2006). Orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects emerge even when the stimulus position is task irrelevant. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(6), 1021–1032. 10.1080/17470210500416243
    Back to article
  50. 50Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. (1991). Procedural learning: 2. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(1), 33–48. 10.1037/0278-7393.17.1.33
    Back to article
  51. 51Pastötter, B., Moeller, B., & Frings, C. (2021). Watching the brain as it (un)binds: Beta synchronization relates to distractor-response binding. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 33(8), 1581–1594. 10.1162/jocn_a_01730
    Back to article
  52. 52Peirce, J., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E., & Lindeløv, J. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203. 10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y
    Back to article
  53. 53Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. Attention and Performance X: Control of Language Processes, 32, 531–556.
    Back to article
  54. 54Posner, M. I., Rafal, R. D., Choate, L. S., & Vaughan, J. (1985). Inhibition of return: Neural basis and function. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2(3), 211–228. 10.1080/02643298508252866
    Back to article
  55. 55Pratt, J., & Hommel, B. (2003). Symbolic control of visual attention: The role of working memory and attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(5), 835–845. 10.1037/0096-1523.29.5.835
    Back to article
  56. 56Pratt, J., Radulescu, P., Guo, R. M., & Hommel, B. (2010). Visuospatial attention is guided by both the symbolic value and the spatial proximity of selected arrows. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(5), 1321–1324. 10.1037/a0019996
    Back to article
  57. 57Redden, R. S., MacInnes, W. J., & Klein, R. M. (2021). Inhibition of return: An information processing theory of its natures and significance. Cortex, 135, 30–48. 10.1016/j.cortex.2020.11.009
    Back to article
  58. 58Samuel, A. G., & Kat, D. (2003). Inhibition of return: A graphical meta-analysis of its time course and an empirical test of its temporal and spatial properties. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 897–906. 10.3758/BF03196550
    Back to article
  59. 59Schöpper, L.-M., & Frings, C. (2022). Inhibition of return (IOR) meets stimulus-response (S-R) binding: Manually responding to central arrow targets is driven by S-R binding, not IOR. Visual Cognition, 30(10), 641–658. 10.1080/13506285.2023.2169802
    Back to article
  60. 60Schöpper, L.-M., & Frings, C. (2023). Same, but different: Binding effects in auditory, but not visual detection performance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 85, 438–451. 10.3758/s13414-021-02436-5
    Back to article
  61. 61Schöpper, L.-M., & Frings, C. (2024). Responding, fast and slow: Visual detection and localization performance is unaffected by retrieval. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 86(1), 171–185. 10.3758/s13414-023-02810-5
    Back to article
  62. 62Schöpper, L.-M., Hilchey, M. D., Lappe, M., & Frings, C. (2020). Detection versus discrimination: The limits of binding accounts in action control. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(4), 2085–2097. 10.3758/s13414-019-01911-4
    Back to article
  63. 63Schöpper, L.-M., Hoffmann, R., & Frings, C. (2024). Another dimension! Using dimension weighting to observe integration and retrieval in localization performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 50(1), 23–38. 10.1037/xhp0001176
    Back to article
  64. 64Schöpper, L.-M., Lappe, M., & Frings, C. (2022a). Found in translation: The role of response mappings for observing binding effects in localization tasks. Visual Cognition, 30, 527–545. 10.1080/13506285.2022.2139033
    Back to article
  65. 65Schöpper, L.-M., Lappe, M., & Frings, C. (2022b). Saccadic landing positions reveal that eye movements are affected by distractor-based retrieval. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 84, 2219–2235. 10.3758/s13414-022-02538-8
    Back to article
  66. 66Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 174–176. 10.1037/h0027448
    Back to article
  67. 67Simon, J. R., & Small, A. M. Jr. (1969). Processing auditory information: Interference from an irrelevant cue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(5), 433–435. 10.1037/h0028034
    Back to article
  68. 68Snyder, J. J., & Schmidt, W. C. (2014). No evidence for directional biases in inhibition of return. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(2), 432–435. 10.3758/s13423-013-0511-3
    Back to article
  69. 69Soballa, P., Schöpper, L.-M., Frings, C., & Merz, S. (2022). Spatial biases in inhibition of return. Visual Cognition, 30(10), 696–715. 10.1080/13506285.2023.2188336
    Back to article
  70. 70Spalek, T. M., & Hammad, S. (2004). Supporting the attentional momentum view of IOR: Is attention biased to go right? Perception & Psychophysics, 66(2), 219–233. 10.3758/BF03194874
    Back to article
  71. 71Spence, C., Lloyd, D., McGlone, F., Nicholls, M. E. R., & Driver, J. (2000). Inhibition of return is supramodal: A demonstration between all possible pairings of vision, touch, and audition. Experimental Brain Research, 134, 42–48. 10.1007/s002210000442
    Back to article
  72. 72Taylor, T. L., & Donnelly, M. P. W. (2002). Inhibition of return for target discriminations: The effect of repeating discriminated and irrelevant stimulus dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 64(2), 292–317. 10.3758/BF03195793
    Back to article
  73. 73Taylor, T. L., & Ivanoff, J. (2005). Inhibition of return and repetition priming effects in localization and discrimination tasks. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(2), 75–89. 10.1037/h0087463
    Back to article
  74. 74Taylor, T. L., & Klein, R. M. (2000). Visual and motor effects in inhibition of return. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(5), 1639–1656. 10.1037//0096-1523.26.5.1639
    Back to article
  75. 75Terry, K. M., Valdes, L. A., & Neill, W. T. (1994). Does “inhibition of return” occur in discrimination tasks? Perception & Psychophysics, 55(3), 279–286. 10.3758/BF03207599
    Back to article
  76. 76Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory Data Analysis. Addison-Wesley.
    Back to article
  77. 77Wang, Z., Satel, J., & Klein, R. M. (2012). Sensory and motor mechanisms of oculomotor inhibition of return. Experimental Brain Research, 218, 441–453. 10.1007/s00221-012-3033-8
    Back to article
  78. 78Wang, Z., Satel, J., Trappenberg, T. P., & Klein, R. M. (2011). Aftereffects of saccades explored in a dynamic neural field model of the superior colliculus. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 4(2), 1–16. 10.16910/jemr.4.2.1
    Back to article
  79. 79Weger, U. W., Abrams, R. A., Law, M. B., & Pratt, J. (2008). Attending to objects: Endogenous cues can produce inhibition of return. Visual Cognition, 16(5), 659–674. 10.1080/13506280701229247
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.422 | Journal eISSN: 2514-4820
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Apr 15, 2024
Accepted on: Dec 17, 2024
Published on: Jan 15, 2025
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
Action control,
attentional orienting,
response-stimulus-interval (RSI),
inhibition of return (IOR),
binding and retrieval

© 2025 Lars-Michael Schöpper, Christian Frings, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 8 (2025): Issue 1Next article