Effects of trial history on cross-modal non-spatial inhibition of return

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00681

Abstract

Abstract:

The individual response to stimuli is influenced not only by the stimulus itself but also by the previous stimulus, which shows that the response to the stimulus in the current trial is influenced by the previous trial, that is, the trial history. This study used the prime- neutral cue-target paradigm to explore the effect of the validity of the preceding trial on cross-modal non-spatial inhibition of return. In Experiment 1, the cue validity between two consecutive trials was used to investigate the effect of trial history on cross-modal non-spatial inhibition of return. To reduce the effect of the trial history on cross-modal non-spatial inhibition of return, Experiment 2 examined whether the effect of the trial history on cross-modal non-spatial inhibition of return was reduced by prolonging the duration of the inter-trial-interval (ITI). The results showed that the inhibition of return in the current trial under invalid preceding trials condition was significantly less than that under valid preceding trials condition, and the effect varied with the modalities of cue and target. When ITI was extended, the influence of the previous trial on the current trial could be effectively reduced. Therefore, this study showed that trial history could have an effect on cross-modal non-spatial return inhibition, and this effect could be reduced by increasing ITI between trials.

Key words: non-spatial IOR, cross-modal IOR, trial history, inter-trial interval

ZHANG Ming, SANG Hanbin, LU Ke, WANG Aijun. (2021). Effects of trial history on cross-modal non-spatial inhibition of return. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(7), 681-693.

Figures/Tables 4

Figure 1. A typical sequence of a sample trial. In a single trial, subjects were presented with a 300 ms of fixation cross, followed by a 300 ms of visual or auditory prime, a 200 ms of fixation cross, and a 300 ms of neutral cue (the visual neutral cue was the green disc), after the neutral cue disappeared, a 300 ms fixation cross was maintained, and an auditory or visual target was presented. The subjects had to respond to the color of the target within 1500 ms, with a time interval of 1500 ms.

Figure 2. The mean reaction time and the effect magnitude of inhibition of return (IOR) under each condition in Experiment 1.
Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, the error line is standard error

Figure 3. Under each condition in Experiment 1, the magnitude of the IOR effect. (V) when the target modality in the current trial is visual, the response time under various conditions; (A) when the target modality in the current trial is auditory, reaction time under each condition.
Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, the error line is standard error.

Figure 4. The mean reaction time and the IOR effect under each condition in Experiment 2.

References 60

[1]	Bertelson P. ( 1961). Sequential redundancy and speed in a serial two- choice responding task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13( 2), 90- 102. http://doi.org/10.1080/17470216108416478. doi: 10.1080/17470216108416478 URL
[2]	Bertelson P. ( 1963). S-R relationships and reaction times to new versus repeated signals in a serial task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65( 5), 478- 484. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0047742. doi: 10.1037/h0047742 URL
[3]	Chi Y.K. , Yue Z.Z. , Liu Y.P. , Mo L. , & Chen Q. ( 2014). Dissociable identity- and modality-specific neural representations as revealed by cross-modal nonspatial inhibition of return. Human Brain Mapping, 35( 8), 4002- 4015. http://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22454. doi: 10.1002/hbm.v35.8 URL
[4]	Fintor E. , Stephan D.N. , & Koch I. ( 2019). The interplay of crossmodal attentional preparation and modality compatibility in cued task switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72( 4), 955- 965. http://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818771836. doi: 10.1177/1747021818771836 URL
[5]	Fox E. , & de Fockert J.-W. ( 2001). Inhibitory effects of repeating color and shape: Inhibition of return or repetition blindness? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27( 4), 798- 812. http://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.4.798. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.27.4.798 URL
[6]	Fritsche M. , Mostert P. , & de Lange F.P. ( 2017). Opposite effects of recent history on perception and decision. Current Biology, 27( 4), 590- 595. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.01.006. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.01.006 URL
[7]	Garcia A.C. , Bhangal S. , Velasquez A.G. , Geisler M.W. , & Morsella E. ( 2016). Metacognition of working memory performance: trial- by-trial subjective effects from a new paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 927. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00927.
[8]	Goller F. , & Ansorge U. ( 2015). There is more to trial history than priming in attentional capture experiments. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 77( 5), 1574- 1584. http://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0896-3. doi: 10.3758/s13414-015-0896-3 URL
[9]	Guerreiro M.J.S. , Adam J.J. , & van Gerven P.W.M. ( 2012). Automatic selective attention as a Function of sensory modality in aging. Journals of Gerontology Series B-Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 67( 2), 194- 202. http://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbr090.
[10]	Heitz R.P. , & Engle R.W. ( 2007). Focusing the spotlight: individual differences in visual attention control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136( 2), 217- 240. http://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.217. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.217 URL
[11]	Hsieh S. , & Liu L.C. ( 2005). The nature of switch cost: task set configuration or carry-over effect? Cognitive Brain Research, 22( 2), 165- 175. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.08.006. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.08.006 URL
[12]	Huang S. , Li Y. , Zhang W. , Zhang B. , Liu X.Z. , Mo L. , & Chen Q. ( 2015). Multisensory competition is modulated by sensory pathway interactions with fronto-sensorimotor and default-mode network regions. The Journal of Neuroscience, 35( 24), 9064- 9077. http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3760-14.2015. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3760-14.2015 URL
[13]	Jiang H. ( 2018). Reconfiguration and interference in voluntary task switching. Advances in Psychological Science, 26( 9), 1624- 1631. http://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.01624. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.01624 URL
[14]	Jongen E.M.M. , & Smulders F.T.Y. ( 2007). Sequence effects in a spatial cueing task: Endogenous orienting is sensitive to orienting in the preceding trial. Psychological Research, 71( 5), 516- 523. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-006-0065-3. doi: 10.1007/s00426-006-0065-3 URL
[15]	Kayser S.J. , & Kayser C. ( 2018). Trial by trial dependencies in multisensory perception and their correlates in dynamic brain activity. Scientific Reports, 8( 1), 3742. http://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22137-8. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-22137-8 URL
[16]	Keye D. , Wilhelm O. , Oberauer K. , & van Ravenzwaaij D. ( 2009). Individual differences in conflict-monitoring: testing means and covariance hypothesis about the Simon and the Eriksen Flanker task. Psychological Research, 73( 6), 762- 776. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0188-9. doi: 10.1007/s00426-008-0188-9 URL
[17]	Kiesel A. , Steinhauser M. , Wendt M. , Falkenstein M. , Jost K. , Philipp A.M. , & Koch I. ( 2010). Control and interference in task switching--A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136( 5), 849- 874. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0019842. doi: 10.1037/a0019842 URL
[18]	Klein R.M. , & Ivanoff J. ( 2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4( 4), 138- 147. http://doi.org/10.4249/scholarpedia.3650. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01452-2 URL
[19]	Kwak H.W. , & Egeth H. ( 1992). Consequences of allocating attention to locations and to other attributes. Perception and Psychophysics, 51( 5), 455- 464. http://doi.org/10.3758/bf03211641. URL pmid: 1594435
[20]	Law M.B. , Pratt J. , & Abrams R.A. ( 1995). Color-based inhibition of return. Perception and Psychophysics, 57( 3), 402- 408. http://doi.org/10.3758/bf03213064. URL pmid: 7770330
[21]	Lee A.K.C. , Hämäläinen M.S. , Dyckman K.A. , Barton J.J.S. , & Manoach D.S. ( 2011). Saccadic preparation in the frontal eye field is modulated by distinct trial history effects as revealed by magnetoencephalography. Cerebral Cortex, 21( 2), 245- 253. http://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhq057. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhq057 URL
[22]	Lupiáñez J. , Klein R.M. , & Bartolomeo P. ( 2006). Inhibition of return: twenty years after. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23( 7), 1003- 1014. http://doi.org/10.1080/02643290600588095. doi: 10.1080/02643290600588095 URL
[23]	Maljkovic V. , & Nakayama K. ( 1994). Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features. Memory and Cognition, 22( 6), 657- 672. http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209251. doi: 10.3758/BF03209251 URL
[24]	Mazza V. , Turatto M. , Rossi M. , & Umilta C. ( 2007). How automatic are audiovisual links in exogenous spatial attention? Neuropsychologia, 45( 3), 514- 522. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.02.010. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.02.010 URL
[25]	Mccarley J.S. , Kramer A.F. , Colcombe A.M. , & Scialfa C.T. ( 2010). Priming of pop-out in visual search: a comparison of young and old adults. Aging Neuropsychology & Cognition, 11( 1), 80- 88. http://doi.org/10.1076/anec.11.1.80.29362.
[26]	McKenna F.P. , & Sharma D. ( 2004). Reversing the emotional stroop effect reveals that it is not what it seems: the role of fast and slow components. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 30( 2), 382- 392. http://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.382. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.382 URL
[27]	Mike W. , Stina K. , & Tilo S. ( 2017). More than attentional tuning - investigating the mechanisms underlying practice gains and preparation in task switching. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 682. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00682. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00682 URL
[28]	MittelstäDt V. , Miller J. , & Kiesel A. ( 2018). Trading off switch costs and stimulus availability benefits: An investigation of voluntary task-switching behavior in a predictable dynamic multitasking environment. Memory and Cognition, 46( 5), 699- 715. http://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0802-z. doi: 10.3758/s13421-018-0802-z URL
[29]	Mondor T.A. , & Amirault K.J. ( 1998). Effect of same- and different- modality spatial cues on auditory and visual target identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24( 3), 745- 755. http://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.24.3.745. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.745 URL
[30]	Mondor T.A. , & Breau L.M. ( 1999). Facultative and inhibitory effects of location and frequency cues: Evidence of a modulation in perceptual sensitivity. Perception and Psychophysics, 61( 3), 438- 444. http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211964. URL pmid: 10334092
[31]	Monsell S. , & Mizon G.A. ( 2006). Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32( 3), 493- 516. http://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.493. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.493 URL
[32]	Murray M.M. , Santis L.D. , Thut G. , & Wylie G.R. ( 2009). The costs of crossing paths and switching tasks between audition and vision. Brain and Cognition, 69( 1). doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2008.05.004. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2008.05.004
[33]	Peng A. , Kirkham N.Z. , & Mareschal D. ( 2018). Task switching costs in preschool children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 172, 59- 72. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.01.019. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2018.01.019 URL
[34]	Poliakoff E. , O'Boyle D.J. , Moore A.P. , McGlone F.P. , Cody F.W.J. , & Spence C. ( 2003). Orienting of attention and Parkinson's disease: tactile inhibition of return and response inhibition. Brain, 126( 9), 2081- 2092. http://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awg210. doi: 10.1093/brain/awg210 URL
[35]	Posner M.I. , & Cohen Y. ( 1984). Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and Performance Vol X: Control of Language Processes (Vol. 32, pp. 531- 556). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
[36]	Pratt J. ( 1995). Inhibition of return in a discrimination task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2( 1), 117- 120. http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214416. doi: 10.3758/BF03214416 URL
[37]	Reuter-Lorenz P.A. , & Rosenquist J.N. ( 1996). Auditory cues and inhibition of return: the importance of oculomotor activation. Experimental Brain Research, 112( 1), 119- 126. http://doi.org/10.1007/bf00227185.
[38]	Roggeveen A.B. , Prime D.J. , & Ward L.M. ( 2005). Inhibition of return and response repetition within and between modalities. Experimental Brain Research, 167( 1), 86- 94. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-005-0010-5. doi: 10.1007/s00221-005-0010-5 URL
[39]	Scalf P.E. , Ahn J. , Beck D.M. , & Lleras A. ( 2014). Trial history effects in the ventral attentional network. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26( 12), 2789- 2797. http://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00678. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00678 URL
[40]	Schneider D.W. ( 2016). Perceptual and conceptual priming of cue encoding in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 42( 7), 1112- 1126. http://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000232. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000232 URL
[41]	Shao Z. ( 2013). Cognitive psychology (2nd ed.). Shanghai, China: Sanghai Educational Publishing House.
[42]	Shin E. , & Chong S.C. ( 2016). Electrophysiological revelations of trial history effects in a color oddball search task. Psychophysiology, 53( 12), 1878- 1888. http://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12766. doi: 10.1111/psyp.2016.53.issue-12 URL
[43]	Spence C. , & Driver J. ( 1998). Auditory and audiovisual inhibition of return. Perception and Psychophysics, 60( 1), 125- 139. http://doi.org/10.3758/bf03211923. URL pmid: 9503917
[44]	Spence 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( 1), 42- 48. http://doi.org/10.1007/s002210000442. doi: 10.1007/s002210000442 URL
[45]	Tipper S.P. , Weaver B. , Jerreat L.M. , & Burak A.L. ( 1994). Object- based and environment-based inhibition of return of visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20( 3), 478- 499. http://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.20.3.478. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.20.3.478 URL
[46]	van der Stoep, N. , van der Stigchel, S. , & Nijboer, T.C.W . ( 2015). Exogenous spatial attention decreases audiovisual integration. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 77( 1), 368- 368. http://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0805-1. doi: 10.3758/s13414-014-0805-1 URL
[47]	Vandierendonck A. , Liefooghe B. , & Verbruggen F. ( 2010). Task switching: interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136( 4), 601- 626. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0019791. doi: 10.1037/a0019791 URL pmid: 20565170
[48]	von Bastian, C.C. , & Druey, M.D. ( 2017). Shifting between mental sets: An individual differences approach to commonalities and differences of task switching components. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146( 9), 1266- 1285. http://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000333. doi: 10.1037/xge0000333 URL
[49]	Wang A.J. , Liu X.L. , Tang X.Y. , & Zhang M. ( 2017). Inhibition of return at different eccentricities in visual field under three-dimensional (3D) world. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49( 6), 723- 732. http://doi.org/10.3724/sp.j.1041.2017.00723. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00723 URL
[50]	Wang A.J. , Wu X.G. , Tang X.Y. , & Zhang M. ( 2020). How modality processing differences affect cross-modal nonspatial repetition inhibition. PsyCh Journal, 9( 3), 306- 315. http://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.332. doi: 10.1002/pchj.v9.3 URL
[51]	Wang A.J. , Yue Z.Z. , Zhang M. , & Chen Q. ( 2015). Interaction between spatial inhibition of return (IOR) and executive control in three-dimensional space. Experimental Brain Research, 233( 11), 3059- 3071. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4374-x. doi: 10.1007/s00221-015-4374-x URL
[52]	Wang L.H. , Yue Z.Z. , & Chen Q. ( 2012). Cross-modal nonspatial repetition inhibition. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 74( 5), 867- 878. http://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0289-9. doi: 10.3758/s13414-012-0289-9 URL
[53]	Wang L.L. , Qiu J. , Guo Y.Q. , Zhang Q.L. , & Luo Y.J. ( 2010). Neural mechanisms of the spatial gradient distribution of inhibition of return: evidence from an ERP study. Journal of Psychological Science, 5( 5), 1074-1078. http://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2010.05.014.
[54]	Ward L.M. , McDonald J.J. , & Lin D. ( 2000). On asymmetries in cross-modal spatial attention orienting. Perception and Psychophysics, 62( 6), 1258-1264. http://doi.org/10.3758/bf03212127.
[55]	Wu X.G. , Wang A.J. , Tang X.Y. , & Zhang M. ( 2019). Different visual and auditory latencies affect cross-modal non-spatial repetition inhibition. Acta Psychologica, 200, 102940. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102940. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102940 URL
[56]	Yang Z. , & Mayer A.R. ( 2014). An event-related FMRI study of exogenous orienting across vision and audition. Human Brain Mapping, 35( 3), 964- 974. http://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22227. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22227 URL
[57]	Zhang M. , & Chen Q. ( 2002). The effect of task demands on spatial- based IOR and color-based repetition disadvantage effect. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 34( 5), 462- 496.
[58]	Zhang Y. , Peng C.H. , Sun Y. , & Zhang M. ( 2013). Cognitive mechanism of visual inhibition of return. Advances in Psychological Science, 21( 11), 1913-1926. http://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.01913.
[59]	Zhou A.-B. , Sang H.-B. , Wang A.-J. , & Zhang M. ( 2020). Visual aperiodic temporal prediction increases perceptual sensitivity and reduces response latencies. Acta Psychologica, 209, 103129. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103129. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103129 URL
[60]	Zhou X.L. , & Chen Q. ( 2008). Neural correlates of spatial and non- spatial inhibition of return (IOR) in attentional orienting. Neuropsychologia, 46( 11), 2766- 2775. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.05.017. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.05.017 URL