:
The sense-formation factors of students emigratory intentions 2
|
|
|
|
11. Posner M.I., Nissen M.J., Ogden W.C. Attended and unattended processing modes: The role of set for spatial location. // Pick H.L., Saltzman I.J. (Eds.) Modes of perceiving and processing information. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1978. P. 160 - 174.
12. Prime D.J., Ward L.M. Auditory frequency-based inhibition differs from spatial IOR. // Perception and Psychophysics. 2002. V. 64. N 5. P. 771 - 784.
13. Rorden C., Driver J. Spatial deployment of attention within and across hemifields in an auditory task // Experimental Brain Research. 2001. V. 137. P. 487^96.
14. Samuel A.G., Kat D. Inhibition of return: A graphical meta-analysis of its time course and an empirical test of its temporal and spatial properties // Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 2003. V. 10. N 4. P. 897 - 906.
15. Schmitt M., Postma A., De Haan E. Interactions between exogenous auditory and visual spatial attention // Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2000. V. 53A. N 1. P. 105 - 130.
16. Schmitt M., Postma A., De Haan E. Cross-modal exogenous attention and distance effects in vision and hearing // European Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 2001. V. 13. N 3. P. 343 - 368.
17. Spalek T.M., Hammad S. Supporting the attentional momentum view of IOR: is attention biased to go right? // Perception and Psychophysics. 2004. V. 66. N 2. P. 219 - 233.
18. Spalek T.M., Hammad S. The left-to-right bias in inhibition of return is due to the direction of reading. // Psychological Science. 2005. V. 16. N 1. P. 15 - 18.
19. Spence C., Driver J. Inhibition of return following an auditory cue: the role of central reorienting events // Experimental Brain Research. 1998. V. 118. P. 352 - 360.
20. Spence C., Lloyd D., McGlone F., Nicholls M.E.R., Driver J. Inhibition of return is supramodal: a demonstration between all possible pairings of vision, touch, and audition // Experimental Brain Research. 2000. V. 134. P. 42 - 48.
21. Taylor L.M., Klein R.M. On the causes and effects of inhibition of return. // Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 1998. V. 5. P. 625 - 643.
22. Tipper S.P., Jordan H., Weaver B. Scene-based and object-centered inhibition of return: Evidence for dual orienting mechanisms. // Perception and Psychophysics. 1999. V. 61. N1. P. 50 - 60.
23. Tipper S.P., Weaver B. The medium of attention: location-based, object-centered, or scene-based? //R. Wright (Ed.). Visual attention. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1998. P. 77 - 107.
24. Ward L.M. Involuntary listening aids hearing // Psychological Science. 1997. V. 8. N 2. P. 112 - 118.
INHIBITION OF RETURN. PART I. KINDS AND PROPERTIES
I. S. Utochkin*, M. V. Falikman**
* Post-graduate student, department of psychology, Moscow State University after M. V. Lomonosov, Moscow
** PhD, junior member of general psychology chair, department of psychology, Moscow State University after M. V. Lomonosov, Moscow
The present-day spatial visual attention researches and, in particular, one of the recently described attention's phenomena - the "inhibition of return" phenomenon, consisting in attention direction on just inspected places in space slowing down, is considered in the article. Tasks' general classification in which the inhibition of return arises is given. Effect's versions in visual modality (spatial, scene- and object-based inhibition), as well as its variants in other modalities and cross-modal conditions are considered. Inhibitation of return dynamics in space and time is discussed
Key words: spatial attention, exogenous orienting, cue paradigm, inhibition of return.
. 48
