Search

In most studies of selective attention, the experimenter informs the participant what the target is and what action is required. For example, participants may be told to name the red drawing. The present study shows that under such conditions of external selection, distractor inhibition is used to ensure that selection is efficient. In external selection, analysis of distractors is limited, causing later recognition of distractor items to be poor. In contrast, during real-world selection a person may be confronted with a number of potential targets and may have to decide what will be the target for action. Under these conditions of internal selection, inhibition of distracting information does not occur. Moreover, distractors are more fully analyzed and thus better recognized at a later test.

Previous research has demonstrated that when a stimulus is to be ignored, the path of motion towards a target (saccade or manual reach) deviates away from the to-be-ignored stimulus. Path deviations in saccade and reaching tasks have, however, been observed in very different situations. In the saccade tasks subjects initially attended to a cue, then disengaged attention while saccading to a target. By contrast, in the selective reaching tasks attention was continuously withdrawn from the to-be-ignored stimulus, as this was irrelevant throughout the experiment. In the two experiments reported here, cues similar to those studied in saccade tasks are examined with selective reaching procedures. Experiment 1 shows that when a coloured light-emitting diode cue, upon which subjects engage and then subsequently disengage attention, is close to the responding hand, the hand deviates away from the cue. Experiment 2 confirms this cue avoidance by showing that, compared with central fixation alone, the hand veers away from a central cue. These results confirm that the path deviations observed in saccades can also be obtained in manual reaching movements. Such findings support the notion that eye and hand movements are both affected by inhibitory mechanisms of attention.

J. Pratt and R.A. Abrams (1995) reported that the inhibition of return of attention is found only for the most recently attended of 2 cued locations. This study does not dispute their findings, but suggests that a more ecologically valid experiment would have more than 2 possible target locations. Twelve male students participated in an experiment in which the target may occur in 1 of 4 possible locations, after 3 of those locations have been cued exogenously in sequence. Inhibition of return was found for each of the cued locations. This result suggests that inhibition may be an important mechanism for aiding visual search in complex environments.