Talk:Inhibition of return

Untitled[edit]

Spence and Driver 1998 get into it a bit. Apparently auditory IOR depends on a reorientation of auditory attention to the center. ThePerson2 (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

The cited paper on auditory inhibition of return used a detection based paradigm instead of a discrimination paradigm. Posner cuing is actually quite strong and reliable in audition so long as participants are told to give the direction of the auditory signal, rather than just its presence. See Spence and Driver 1994.

I might be back here with a newer auditory inhibition of return paper if I find one. --ThePerson2 (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

needs to be added:

more context - Orientation of Attention / Cost/Benefit / Posner's Paradigm
differences between exogene and endogene IOR
criticism of Posner's model: object vs. space

--Telecart 04:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, given that this is pretty esoteric - who is both (a) capable of writing this, and (b) willing to do so outside of a manuscript for publication?

Not me. Jedre 05:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither me. :-P Maybe a) but not b) ... that's what we are made of by science ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.169.43.157 (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vicktoriea94.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not understandable to newcomers[edit]

I tried. Exactly what is it that takes xx-yy miliseconds? To notice smth? To realize that smth appeard? changed? disappeared? Maybe an example? 193.140.194.176 (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - the delay - in laymen's terms --- means that it it takes longer to detect that something has appeared.

Poor article[edit]

I considered tidying this article up, but I'm not even sure where to start! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Error in protocol description[edit]

"During the trial, a target (a bright filled square) occurs in the center box at either 0, 50, 100, 200, 300, or 500 ms" The target actually occurs in the central box with 0.6 probability, in one of the peripheral boxes with 0.1 probability, and does not occur at all with 0.2 probability. Pklala (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)^[1][reply]

I think inhibition of return is independent of probability - e.g. is shown with non-informative peripheral/exogenous cues - so perhaps it would be better to say that, rather than describe probabilities etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.84 (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Posner, M.I.; Cohen, Y. (1984). "Components of visual orienting". In Bouma, H.; Bouwhuis, D. Attention and performance X: Control of language processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 531–56.

Overall comments[edit]

1. I plan on going in and editing the page numbers for the sources so they are more precise as someone has flagged 2.This article could benefit from a section that addresses the real life applications or examples of inhibition of return. 3. We can breakdown further the difference between exogenous and endogenous IOR and explain them. http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/yzli/9.35/4_13_04_attention_lecture.pdf This information comes from the same article that is already cited but I think it should be included in the IOR wiki page

Vicktoriea94 (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Posner, M.I.; Cohen, Y. (1984). "Components of visual orienting". In Bouma, H.; Bouwhuis, D. Attention and performance X: Control of language processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 531–56.

[1]