Visual search and the inhibitions of return

Klein, Raymond M.; Redden, Ralph S.; Hilchey, Matthew D. · 2023 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.3389/fcogn.2023.1146511

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This review paper examines the relationship between visual search mechanisms and the phenomenon known as Inhibition of Return (IOR), a process that biases attention away from previously explored locations. The authors trace the historical convergence of two major research streams: Anne Treisman’s work on serial versus pop-out visual search and Michael Posner’s investigations into spatial attention orienting. Posner originally proposed that IOR serves as a novelty-seeking mechanism to improve search efficiency by discouraging the re-inspection of already examined items. The paper argues that subsequent research reveals at least two distinct inhibitory mechanisms—input-based and output-based IOR—that both facilitate this function but operate through different cognitive processes. The authors synthesize evidence from various experimental paradigms to distinguish these two forms of inhibition. They utilize three primary diagnostics: comparing responses to peripheral targets versus central arrows, analyzing speed-accuracy tradeoffs (SAT), and applying the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm. A central finding is that the state of the reflexive oculomotor system determines which form of IOR is generated. When this system is suppressed (e.g., during anti-saccade tasks or when eye movements are forbidden), an "input" form of IOR occurs, which reduces the salience or quality of the sensory signal at the cued location. Conversely, when the oculomotor system is active (e.g., during pro-saccades), an "output" form of IOR occurs, which acts as a response bias against executing behaviors toward the previously attended location. Specific experimental results support this dual-nature hypothesis. Studies using the SAT diagnostic show that input IOR slows the accumulation of evidence without affecting response thresholds, whereas output IOR increases the threshold for responding. PRP experiments demonstrate that input IOR operates early in the processing stream (before the central bottleneck), while output IOR operates later (at or after the bottleneck). Furthermore, research combining visual search tasks with post-search probes confirms that IOR tags are left on distractors during difficult, serial search tasks, supporting the idea that inhibition aids in scanning for novel targets. These tags are likely maintained in the mental representation of the scene rather than on the physical stimuli. The significance of this review lies in its clarification of the mechanisms underlying IOR, resolving ambiguities in earlier literature by distinguishing between sensory adaptation and response bias. By linking the activation state of the oculomotor system to the type of inhibition generated, the authors provide a unified framework for understanding how attention is allocated during visual search. The paper concludes that both forms of IOR serve the adaptive function of promoting novelty seeking, though many questions regarding the precise causes of input IOR and the dynamics of these mechanisms remain open for future research.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-25; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• visual search
• attention selective divided
• inattentional change blindness