Dataset for: Inhibition of return (IOR) meets stimulus-response (S-R) binding: Manually responding to central arrow targets is driven by S-R binding, not IOR

Dataset for the study "Inhibition of return (IOR) meets stimulus-response (S-R) binding: Manually responding to central arrow targets is driven by S-R binding, not IOR", to-be-published in Visual Cognition. For further information please refer to the aforementioned paper. The aggregated data file and the percentile datasets can be analyzed by using the SPSS-Syntax available under "Code for: Inhibition of return (IOR) meets stimulus-response (S-R) binding: Manually responding to central arrow targets is driven by S-R binding, not IOR".

Dataset for: Schöpper, L. M., & Frings, C. (2023). Inhibition of return (IOR) meets stimulus-response (SR) binding: Manually responding to central arrow targets is driven by SR binding, not IOR. Visual Cognition, 30(10), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2023.2169802

Localizing targets repeating or changing their position typically leads to a benefit for location changes, that is, inhibition of return (IOR). Yet, IOR is mostly absent when sequentially responding to arrows pointing to the left or right. Previous research suggested that responding to central arrow targets resembles a discrimination response. For the latter, action control theories expect the modulation of response repetitions and changes by task-irrelevant feature repetitions and changes (e.g., colour), caused by stimulus-response (S-R) binding – a modulation typically absent in localization performance. In the current study, participants gave left and right responses to peripheral targets repeating or changing their position, and to central arrow targets repeating or changing their pointing direction. Targets could repeat or change their colour. For central targets, responses were heavily modulated by colour repetitions and changes, suggesting S-R binding. No S-R binding, but only IOR was found for peripheral targets. Analysis of reaction time percentiles suggested that this pattern was not caused by fast response execution. These results show that S-R binding approaches allow to explain effects typically discussed in the context of attentional orienting, highlighting the similarities of two research strands working in parallel for years without much of exchange.