The most common evidence for inhibition of return (IOR) is the robust finding of increased
response times to targets that appear at previously cued locations following a cue-target interval
exceeding ~ 300 ms. In a variation on this paradigm, Abrams and Dobkin (1994a) observed that
IOR was greater when a saccadic response was made to a peripheral than to a central arrow,
leading to the conclusion that saccadic responses to peripheral targets comprise motoric and
perceptual components (the two components theory for IOR) whereas saccadic responses to a
central target comprise a single motoric component. In contrast to the foregoing findings, Taylor
and Klein (2000) discovered that IOR for saccadic responses was equivalent for randomly
intermixed central and peripheral targets, suggesting a single motoric flavor under these
conditions. To resolve the apparent discrepancy, a strict replication of Abrams and Dobkin was
conducted in which central and peripheral targets were either blocked or mixed. In the blocked
design, peripheral targets resulted in more IOR than central targets, while in the mixed design,
replicating Taylor and Klein (2000), target type had no bearing on the magnitude of IOR (i.e.,
equivalent IOR was obtained for both target types). This pattern of results suggests that the
confound inherent in Abrams and Dobkin's blocked design generated a pattern of results that
"masqueraded" as two components of IOR.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:LACETR/oai:collectionscanada.gc.ca:NSHD.ca#10222/13495 |
| Date | 31 March 2011 |
| Creators | Hilchey, Matthew D |
| Source Sets | Library and Archives Canada ETDs Repository / Centre d'archives des thèses électroniques de Bibliothèque et Archives Canada |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
Page generated in 0.0015 seconds