title: Foraging for thought: an inhibition-of-return-like effect resulting from directing attention within working memory.
abstract: Perceptual processing of a target stimulus may be inhibited if its location has just been cued, a phenomenon of spatial attention known as inhibition of return (IOR). In the research reported here, we demonstrated a striking effect, wherein items that have just been the focus of reflective attention (internal attention to an active representation) also are inhibited. Participants saw two items, followed by a cue to think back to (i.e., refresh, or direct reflective attention toward) one item, and then had to identify either the refreshed item, the unrefreshed item, or a novel item. Responses were significantly slower for refreshed items than for unrefreshed items, although refreshed items were better remembered on a later memory test. Control experiments in which we replaced the refresh event with a second presentation of one of the words did not show similar effects. These results suggest that reflective attention can produce an inhibition effect for attended items that may be analogous to IOR effects in perceptual attention.
authors: Interdepartmental Neuroscience Program, Yale University, USA.
authors: Matthew R
authors: MR
authors: Johnson
authors: Julie A
authors: JA
authors: Higgins
authors: Kenneth A
authors: KA
authors: Norman
authors: Per B
authors: PB
authors: Sederberg
authors: Troy A
authors: TA
authors: Smith
authors: Marcia K
authors: MK
authors: Johnson
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology*; D003071:Cognition / Q000502:physiology*; D003463:Cues; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007266:Inhibition, Psychological; D008297:Male; D008570:Memory, Short-Term / Q000502:physiology*; D011930:Reaction Time; D055815:Young Adult
keywords: attention; memory; refreshing; short-term memory
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 2009 Dec;21(12):2320-7
references: 19199413
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 2008 Aug;20(8):1371-80
references: 18303973
references: Percept Psychophys. 2006 Feb;68(2):244-53
references: 16773897
references: Mem Cognit. 2009 Sep;37(6):829-36
references: 19679862
references: Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:73-101
references: 19575619
references: Behav Res Methods. 2007 Aug;39(3):445-59
references: 17958156
references: Neuroimage. 2009 Nov 15;48(3):601-8
references: 19595772
references: Psychol Sci. 2002 Jan;13(1):64-7
references: 11892780
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Apr;16(2):238-51
references: 19293089
references: Mem Cognit. 2009 Mar;37(2):164-74
references: 19223566
references: Cereb Cortex. 2010 Nov;20(11):2760-70
references: 20181622
references: Neuroimage. 2002 Feb;15(2):447-53
references: 11798278
references: Neuron. 2011 Nov 17;72(4):520-35
references: 22099456
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Apr;4(4):138-147
references: 10740278
references: Brain Res. 2006 Aug 11;1105(1):20-31
references: 16729979
references: Neuroimage. 2007 Aug 1;37(1):290-9
references: 17574442
references: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2005 Sep;5(3):339-61
references: 16396094
references: Cereb Cortex. 2007 Sep;17(9):2072-83
references: 17099066