Using the spatial cueing technique, this study demonstrates that the center of mass (centroid) of a visual scene has a special ability to attract attention evenwhen there is no object presented at this location. Four boxes formed an imaginary square presented to the left or right hemifield. After the cueing in one box, a target appeared in one of the four boxes and, in addition, at centroid. Fastest reaction times were observed at centroid, irrespective of whether this centroid was also occupied by a box. Reaction times at the uncued locations varied according to their relative positions to centroid and fixation. No inhibition of return effect was observed when the cue was at centroid. NeuroReport 00:000-000

Previous studies find that the feedback-related negativity in brain potentials is sensitive to the negative outcome of one’s own performance. The feedback-related negativity is suggested to reflect the learning processes using feedback about the consequences of recent actions. Learning can also take placewhen one observes other people’s actions and the associated outcomes. We recorded brain potentials while the participant received outcome feedback for their own or for another person’s performance in a gambling task. The feedback-related negativity or the feedback-related negativity-like effects were obtained in both situations, suggesting that similar neural mechanisms are involved in evaluating the outcomes of one’s own and the other’s actions. Thus, the neural processes in learning-by-observation resemble those in learning-by-doing. NeuroReport 17: 1747-1751 © 2006 LippincottWilliams &Wilkins.

Using a cue–target paradigm, this study investigated the interaction between location and frequency information processing in human auditory inhibition of return (IOR). The cue and the target varied in terms of location and frequency and participants were asked to perform a target detection, localization or frequency discrimination task. Results showed that, when neither location nor frequency of auditory stimuli was particularly relevant to the target detection task, there was a location-based IOR only if the cue and the target were identical in frequency and there was a frequencybased IOR only if the cue and the target were presented at the same location. When a particular feature of auditory stimuli, whether location or frequency, was directly relevant to the current task, the IOR effect was evident for this feature only if the cue and the target differed on the task-irrelevant feature, while the IOR effect was eliminated for the task-relevant feature when the cue and the target had the same task-irrelevant feature. Similarly, the IOR effect based on the task-irrelevant feature was evident when the cue and the target differed on the task-relevant feature, and was eliminated or reversed when the cue and the target shared the task-relevant feature. Theoretical implications of these Wndings for auditory IOR are discussed.

This study explored the interaction between the spatial distribution of attention during inhibition of return (IOR) and different levels of flanker interference in congenitally deaf subjects as compared with hearing subjects. Color (Experiment 1) and alphanumeric (Experiment 2) flanker interference effects were differentiated into the pre-response and the response levels. The spatial distribution of attention was manipulated through IOR. Subjects were asked to either make color or letter/digit discriminations to the central targets or detect the abrupt-onset peripheral targets. Deaf subjects were significantly faster than hearing subjects at detecting peripheral targets irrespective of the cue validity, while the two groups had comparable sizes of IOR. In the central discrimination tasks, deaf subjects showed significant response level, but not pre-response level, flanker effects irrespective of the type of stimuli and the spatial location of the flanker. For hearing subjects, however, spatial attention interacted with the pre-response and response flanker effects in different ways. While flankers at the cued location caused interference effects at the response level and facilitatory effects at the pre-response level, those at the uncued location caused different effects depending on the type of stimuli. Moreover, increasing the peripheral attention for hearing subjects, by increasing the proportion of peripheral detection trials, made hearing subjects behave like deaf subjects. These results demonstrate that deaf people possess enhanced peripheral attentional resources as compared with hearing people. The spatial distribution of attention modulates mainly the resolution of the pre-response flanker interference in hearing people, but affects neither the pre-response nor the response level interference in deaf people.

It is well documented that the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) are intensively involved in conflict control. However, it remains unclear how these ‘‘executive’’ brain regions will act when the conflict control process interacts with spatial attentional orienting. In the classical spatial cueing paradigm [Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance X (pp. 531–556). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum], response to a target is delayed when it appears at the cued location compared with at the uncued location, if the time interval between the cue and the target is greater than 300 msec. This effect of inhibition of return (IOR) can alter the resolution of Stroop conflict such that the Stroop interference effect disappears at the cued (inhibited) location [Vivas, A. B., & Fuentes, L. J. Stroop interference is affected in inhibition of return. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 315–323, 2001]. In this event-related functional magnetic resonance study, we investigate the differential neural mechanisms underlying interactions between preresponse interference, response interference, and spatial orienting. Two types of Stroop words [incongruent responseeligible words (IE), incongruent response-ineligible words (II)] and neutral words were presented either at the cued or uncued location. The significant pre-response interference at the uncued location activated the left rostral ACC as compared with at the cued location. Moreover, although the IE words which have conflicts at both pre-response and response levels did not cause significant behavioral interference at the cued location, they activated the left DLPFC as compared with at the uncued location. Furthermore, neutral words showed significant IOR effects behaviorally, and they activated the left frontal eye field (FEF) at the uncued location relative to the cued location. These results suggest that the left rostral ACC is involved in the interaction between pre-response conflict and IOR, whereas the left DLPFC is involved in the interaction between response conflict and IOR. Moreover, the FEF is involved in shifting attentional focus to novel locations during spatial search.