Spatially diffuse inhibition affects multiple locations: a reply to Tipper, Weaver, and Watson (1996).
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.
Abrams
R A
RA
Department of Psychology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130, USA. rabrams@artsci.wustl.edu
Pratt
J
J
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