title: Spatially diffuse inhibition affects multiple locations: a reply to Tipper, Weaver, and Watson (1996).
abstract: S. Tipper, B. Weaver, and F. Watson (1996) suggest that J. Pratt and R.A. Abrams's (1995) failure to find inhibition of return for more than the most recently cued location was because their 2-target display did not adequately capture some of the complexity of real-world visual environments. However, Tipper et al. tested a special case because they always cued 3 out of 4 potential targets (allowing cued and uncued locations to be segregated into 2 spatial regions). The authors show that only the 1 most recently cued location will be inhibited when 2 nonadjacent targets out of 4 possible targets are cued, but both cued locations will be inhibited when they are adjacent. Also, only the 1 most recently cued location was inhibited when 3 nonadjacent targets out of 6 potential target locations were cued. Thus, in a complex environment in which several cued locations are interspersed among noncued locations, inhibition of return will occur for only the 1 most recently attended location, consistent with conclusions of Pratt and Abrams.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130, USA. rabrams@artsci.wustl.edu
authors.forename: R A
authors.initials: RA
authors.lastname: Abrams
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Pratt
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001288:Attention; D003463:Cues; D005260:Female; D005403:Fixation, Ocular; D006801:Humans; D007266:Inhibition, Psychological; D008297:Male; D011939:Mental Recall; D009949:Orientation; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D013028:Space Perception; D014796:Visual Perception