Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T14:10:59.345Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inhibition or facilitation of return: Does chromatic component count?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2006

LUIZ HENRIQUE M. DO CANTO-PEREIRA ,
GALINA V. PARAMEI ,
EDGARD MORYA  and
RONALD D. RANVAUD
LUIZ HENRIQUE M. DO CANTO-PEREIRA
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Neurosciences and Behavior Program, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
GALINA V. PARAMEI
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychology, Darmstadt University of Technology, Darmstadt, Germany
EDGARD MORYA
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Neurosciences and Behavior Program, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
RONALD D. RANVAUD
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Neurosciences and Behavior Program, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Inhibitory effects have been reported when a target is preceded by a cue of the same color and location. Color-based inhibition was found using red and blue nonisoluminant stimuli (Law et al., 1995). Here we investigate whether this phenomenon depends on the chromatic subsystem involved by employing isoluminant colors varying along either the violet-yellow or purple-turquoise cardinal axis. Experiment 1 replicated Law et al.'s study: After fixating magenta, either a red or blue cue was presented, followed by a magenta “neutral attractor,” and, finally, by a red or blue target. In Experiment 2, violet and yellow, cue or target, varied along a tritan confusion line in the CIE 1976 chromaticity diagram. In Experiment 3, purple and turquoise, cue or target, varied along a deutan confusion line in the CIE 1976 chromaticity diagram. Normal trichromats (n = 19) participated in all three experiments. In Experiment 1, color repetition indeed resulted in longer reaction times (RTs) (4.7 ms, P = 0.038). In Experiment 2, however, no significant color repetition effect was found; RTs to violet and yellow were not significantly different, though tending toward slower responses (2 ms) for violet repetition but faster (5 ms) for yellow. Experiment 3 also showed no color repetition effect (P = 0.58); notably, RTs were overall faster for purple than for turquoise (22 ms, P < 0.0001). Furthermore, responses tended to be slower for purple repetition (4 ms, P > 0.05), but faster for turquoise (7 ms, P > 0.05). These findings demonstrate that color repetition is not always inhibitory but may turn facilitatory depending on the colors employed. The results indicate that disengagement of attention is an unlikely mechanism to be the sole explanation of previously reported color-based inhibition of return. We suggest a complementary, perceptual explanation: response (dis)advantage depends on whether the stimuli are isoluminant and on the opponent chromatic subsystem involved. The choice of the colors employed and the cue-attractor-target constellation also may be of significance.

Keywords

ColorInhibition of returnFacilitation of returnChromatic subsystemsVisual attention
Type
TEMPORAL FACTORS
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 23 , Issue 3-4 , May 2006 , pp. 489 - 493
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barbur, J.L., Harlow, A.J., & Plant, G.T. (1994). Insights into the different exploits of colour in the visual cortex. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 258, 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bichot, N.P. & Schall, J.D. (2002). Priming in macaque frontal cortex during popout visual search: Feature-based facilitation and location-based inhibition of return. Journal of Neuroscience 22, 4675–4685.Google Scholar
Canto-Pereira, L.H.M. do, Lago, M., Saito, C.A., Costa, M.F., Rodrigues, A.R., Silveira, L.C.L., & Ventura, D.S.F. (2005). Visual impairment related to occupational exposure in dentists. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 19, 517–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, E. & 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, 798–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, B. & Amelio, J. (2000). Inhibition of return and attentional control settings. Perception & Psychophysics 62, 496–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, D.E., Colcombe, A.M., Kramer, A.F., & Hahn, S. (2000). Attentional and oculomotor capture by onset, luminance and color singletons. Vision Research 40, 1443–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanwisher, N.G., Driver, J., & Machado, L. (1995). Spatial repetition blindness is modulated by selective attention to color or shape. Cognitive Psychology 29, 303–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, M.K. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4, 138–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwak, H. & Egeth, H. (1992). Consequences of allocating attention to locations and to other attributes. Perception & Psychophysics 51, 455–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, M.B., Pratt, J., & Abrams, R.A. (1995). Color-based inhibition of return. Perception & Psychophysics 57, 402–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupiañez, J.L., Milán, E.G., Tornay, F.J., Madrid, E., & Tudela, P. (1997). Does IOR occur in discrimination tasks? Yes, it does, but later. Perception & Psychophysics 59, 1241–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mollon, J.D. & Reffin, J.P. (2000). Handbook of the Cambridge Color Test. London: Cambridge Research Systems.
Pratt, J. & Castel, A.D. (2001). Responding to feature or location? A re-examination of inhibition of return and facilitation of return. Vision Research 41, 3903–3908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime User's Guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.
Segalowitz, S.J. & Graves, R. (1990). Suitability of the IBM XT, AT and PS/2 keyboard, mouse, and game port as response devices in reaction time paradigms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 22, 283–289.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Y. & Shimojo, S. (1996). Location vs feature: Reaction time reveals dissociation between two visual functions. Vision Research 36, 2125–2140.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Y. & Shimojo, S. (2000). Repetition priming reveals sustained facilitation and transient inhibition in reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26, 1421–1435.Google Scholar
Taylor, L.T. & Klein, R.M. (1998). Inhibition of return to color: A replication and non-extension of Law, Pratt and Abrams (1995). Perception & Psychophysics 60, 1452–1456.Google Scholar