Distribution in the visual field of the costs of voluntarily allocated attention and of the inhibitory after-effects of covert orienting
References (27)
- et al.
Natural boundaries for the spatial spread of directed visual attention
Neuropsychologia
(1987) - et al.
Direction of attention in the visual field as measured by a reaction time paradigm
Behav. Brain Res.
(1981) - et al.
The organization of the callosal connections according to Sperry's principle of supplemental complementarity
- Berlucchi, G., Tassinari, G., Marzi, C.A. and Di Stefano, M. Spatial distribution of the inhibitory after-effect of...
- et al.
Human cortical magnification factor and its relation to visual acuity
Expl Brain Res.
(1974) - et al.
The spatial structure of visual attention
- et al.
The organization of eye and limb movements during unrestricted reaching to targets in contralateral and ipsilateral visual space
Expl Brain Res.
(1985) - et al.
Response time in the full visual field
J. appl. Psychol.
(1973) - et al.
Spatial maps of directed visual attention
J. exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform.
(1985) Towards a model of the mind's eye's movements
Can. J. Psychol.
(1980)
Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind's eye's movement
On the cost and benefit of cost and benefit
Psychol. Bull.
Behavioral analysis of movement
Cited by (177)
Fixation offset decreases pupillary inhibition of return
2023, Brain and CognitionDoes temperament have a differential effect on Inhibition of Return (IOR)?
2021, Acta PsychologicaCitation Excerpt :However, when the time interval between the stimulus and the target exceeds approximately 300 ms, the reverse effect occurs, with slower and less accurate reactions to targets appearing at recently cued locations. This phenomenon was discovered independently by Posner and Cohen (1984) as well as by Tassinari, Aglioti, Chelazzi, Marzi, and Berlucchi (1987) and has been referred to variously as “inhibitory aftereffect” (Tassinari et al., 1987), “inhibitory tagging” (Fuentes, Vivas, & Humphreys, 1999; Klein, 1988) and, most frequently, “inhibition of return” (IOR; Posner, Rafal, Choate, & Vaughan, 1985). It is typically explained in terms of an inhibitory bias against returning attention to previously attended locations, directing it instead toward other locations and, thus, to serve as a novelty seeking mechanism (Posner & Cohen, 1984) or as a foraging facilitator (Klein & MacInnes, 1999; Itti & Koch, 2001).
Behavioural and neural effects of eccentricity and visual field during covert visuospatial attention
2021, Neuroimage: ReportsTemporal dissociation between the focal and orientation components of spatial attention in central and peripheral vision
2016, Acta PsychologicaCitation Excerpt :In fact, as already shown in the literature, RTs increase with eccentricity for both uncued and precued targets during detection tasks (Marzi & Di Stefano, 1981; Marzi, Mancini, Metitieri, & Savazzi, 2006; Benso et al., 1998). This effect is usually attributed to changes in the distribution of covert spatial attention along the horizontal meridian of the visual field (e.g. Tassinari, Aglioti, Chelazzi, Marzi, & Berlucchi, 1987). Secondly, the interaction between SOAs, cue types and retinal eccentricity reveals the interplay between the focal and orientation components of spatial attention.