title: No evidence for directional biases in inhibition of return.
abstract: The phenomenon of "inhibition of return" (IOR) has been the subject of considerable research interest for nearly 30 years. Two reports claiming directional biases in IOR (Spalek & Hammad, Perception & Psychophysics 66:219-233, 2004, Psychological Science 16:15-18, 2005) were examined more closely, as such findings challenge the theoretical role attributed to IOR and imply that this purported mechanism for the facilitation of visual search would bias search in systematic ways. The data from two new experiments, as well as reanalysis of the original data, showed the reports to result from an unconventional method of calculating IOR that confounded visual field with target location. Although we found significant differences in target detection response times between the visual fields, directional biases were absent from all of the examined data when the conventional method of computing IOR was applied.
authors.affiliation: Psychology Department, University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus, ART 318, 1147 Research Rd, Kelowna, British Columbia, V1V 1V7, Canada, janice.snyder@ubc.ca.
authors.forename: Janice J
authors.initials: JJ
authors.lastname: Snyder
authors.forename: William C
authors.initials: WC
authors.lastname: Schmidt
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology*; D006801:Humans; D007266:Inhibition, Psychological; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual / Q000502:physiology*; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000502:physiology*; D013028:Space Perception / Q000502:physiology*
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 1990 Apr;73(3):195-209
references.pmid: 2353586
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2006 Nov;18(11):1913-23
references.pmid: 17069481
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 1988 Nov;69(2):129-55
references.pmid: 3245479
references.citation: Nature. 1988 Aug 4;334(6181):430-1
references.pmid: 3405288
references.citation: Cogn Neuropsychol. 2006 Oct 1;23(7):1049-64
references.pmid: 21049367
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol A. 1991 Nov;43(4):859-80
references.pmid: 1775667
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2005 Jan;16(1):15-8
references.pmid: 15660846
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Apr;4(4):138-147
references.pmid: 10740278
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1999 Aug;61(6):1024-37
references.pmid: 10497424
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1996 Oct;22(5):1289-93
references.pmid: 8965063
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2004 Feb;66(2):219-33
references.pmid: 15129744
references.citation: Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2004 May;19(3):269-74
references.pmid: 15062864
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1989 May;15(2):315-30
references.pmid: 2525601
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2000 Jul;12(4):648-63
references.pmid: 10936917
references.citation: J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2001 Mar;7(3):275-84
references.pmid: 11311028
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 1987;25(1A):19-29
references.pmid: 3574647