Spatially diffuse inhibition affects multiple locations: a reply to Tipper, Weaver, and Watson (1996).

摘要: S. Tipper, B. Weaver, and F. Watson (1996) suggest that J. Pratt R.A. Abrams's (1995) failure to find inhibition of return for more than the most recently cued location was because their 2-target display did not adequately capture some complexity real-world visual environments. However, Tipper et al. tested a special case they always 3 out 4 potential targets (allowing uncued locations be segregated into 2 spatial regions). The authors show only 1 will inhibited when nonadjacent possible are cued, but both adjacent. Also, 6 target were cued. Thus, in complex environment which several interspersed among noncued locations, occur attended location, consistent with conclusions Abrams.