抑制标签理论的研究综述
A Review of Research on Inhibitory Tagging Theory
DOI: 10.12677/ap.2025.157425, PDF,   
作者: 王瑜浩：苏州大学教育学院，江苏 苏州
关键词: 抑制标签；返回抑制；Stroop；Flanker；语义启动；Inhibitory Tagging； Inhibition of Return； Stroop； Flanker； Semantic Priming
摘要: 返回抑制(IOR)有助于个体将注意集中于新颖信息，减少对已注意过内容的重复关注，从而显著提高视觉搜索效率。本文以抑制标签理论为核心，系统综述了IOR与其他认知效应之间的交互作用机制。首先，文章厘清了抑制标签与IOR之间的关系，指出二者为相互独立的认知过程，并对其概念进行了辨析。随后，梳理了抑制标签理论的主要实证研究成果，深入探讨其作用对象、作用阶段及认知神经机制。研究表明，抑制标签通过阻断线索化位置上刺激表征与反应表征之间的连接来发挥作用，主要作用于那些能够被快速、自动提取的信息维度。然而，关于其具体作用阶段及认知神经机制，当前研究尚存在分歧。最后，本文指出，未来研究可进一步结合神经成像技术，明确抑制标签的作用机制，并拓展其在认知障碍评估与干预中的应用前景。
Abstract: Inhibition of return (IOR) helps individuals focus attention on novel information while reducing repeated attention to previously attended stimuli, thereby significantly enhancing visual search efficiency. Centered on the inhibitory tagging theory, this review provides a systematic overview of the interaction mechanisms between IOR and other cognitive effects. First, the relationship between inhibitory tagging and IOR is clarified, with the two identified as independent cognitive processes, and their conceptual distinctions are discussed. Then, major empirical studies on inhibitory tagging theory are reviewed, with in-depth analysis of its target objects, temporal stages, and underlying cognitive neural mechanisms. Findings suggest that inhibitory tagging functions by disrupting the connection between stimulus representation and response representation at cued locations, primarily affecting information dimensions that are processed quickly and automatically. However, there remain controversies regarding the specific stages and neural mechanisms involved. Finally, this review highlights the need for future research to integrate neuroimaging techniques to further elucidate the mechanisms of inhibitory tagging and explore its potential applications in the assessment and intervention of cognitive disorders.
文章引用：王瑜浩 (2025). 抑制标签理论的研究综述. 心理学进展, 15(7), 248-254. https://doi.org/10.12677/ap.2025.157425

参考文献

[1] 付佳(2010). 返回抑制对空间Stroop冲突解决的影响. 博士学位论文, 长春: 东北师范大学.
[2] 秦晋(2021). 注意定向的易化和抑制对色——词Stroop任务的影响. 硕士学位论文, 石家庄: 河北师范大学.
[3] 唐晓雨(2012). 掩蔽线索引发的返回抑制及其机制研究. 硕士学位论文, 长春: 东北师范大学.
[4] 徐瑶(2015). 近身空间和远身变间的返回抑制差异. 硕士学位论文, 长春: 东北师范大学.
[5] 张明, 陈骐, 金志成(2003). 前、后注意网络的关系——返回抑制和Stroop干扰效应. 心理科学, (4), 638-641.
[6] 张阳(2011). 视觉返回抑制的认知神经机制研究. 博士学位论文, 长春: 东北师范大学.
[7] Chen, Q., Wei, P., & Zhou, X. (2006). Distinct Neural Correlates for Resolving Stroop Conflict at Inhibited and Noninhibited Locations in Inhibition of Return. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1937-1946.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8] Choi, J. M., Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2009). Impaired Color Word Processing at an Unattended Location: Evidence from a Stroop Task Combined with Inhibition of Return. Memory & Cognition, 37, 935-944.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[9] De Houwer, J. (2003). On the Role of Stimulus-Response and Stimulus-Stimulus Compatibility in the Stroop Effect. Memory & Cognition, 31, 353-359.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[10] Fernández, P. J., Vivas, A. B., Chechlacz, M., & Fuentes, L. J. (2022). The Role of the Parietal Cortex in Inhibitory Processing in the Vertical Meridian: Evidence from Elderly Brain Damaged Patients. Aging Brain, 2, Article ID: 100043.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] Fuentes, L. J., Boucart, M., Vivas, A. B., Alvarez, R., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2000). Inhibitory Tagging in Inhibition of Return Is Affected in Schizophrenia: Evidence from the Stroop Task. Neuropsychology, 14, 134-140.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[12] Fuentes, L. J., Vivas, A. B., & Humphreys, G. W. (1999). Inhibitory Tagging of Stimulus Properties in Inhibition of Return: Effects on Semantic Priming and Flanker Interference. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 52, 149-164.[CrossRef] 
[13] Hulleman, J. (2009). No Need for Inhibitory Tagging of Locations in Visual Search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 116-120.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[14] Klein, R. (1988). Inhibitory Tagging System Facilitates Visual Search. Nature, 334, 430-431.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[15] Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of Return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 138-147.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[16] Klein, R. M., & MacInnes, W. J. (1999). Inhibition of Return Is a Foraging Facilitator in Visual Search. Psychological Science, 10, 346-352.[CrossRef] 
[17] Klein, R. M., & Taylor, T. L. (1994). Categories of cognitive inhibition, with reference to attention. In D. Dagenbach, & T. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory Processes in Attention, Memory, and Language (pp. 113-150). Academic Press.
[18] Langley, L. K., Vivas, A. B., Fuentes, L. J., & Bagne, A. G. (2005). Differential Age Effects on Attention-Based Inhibition: Inhibitory Tagging and Inhibition of Return. Psychology and Aging, 20, 356-360.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[19] Li, A., Li, Y., He, X., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Inhibition of Return as a Foraging Facilitator in Visual Search: Evidence from Long-Term Training. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 85, 88-98.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[20] Liu, X., Banich, M. T., Jacobson, B. L., & Tanabe, J. L. (2006). Functional Dissociation of Attentional Selection within PFC: Response and Non-Response Related Aspects of Attentional Selection as Ascertained by fMRI. Cerebral Cortex, 16, 827-834.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[21] Macinnes, W. J., & Klein, R. M. (2003). Inhibition of Return Biases Orienting during the Search of Complex Scenes. The Scientific World Journal, 3, 75-86.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[22] Martínez-Pérez, V., Castillo, A., Sánchez-Pérez, N., Vivas, A. B., Campoy, G., & Fuentes, L. J. (2019). Time Course of the Inhibitory Tagging Effect in Ongoing Emotional Processing. A HD-tDCS Study. Neuropsychologia, 135, Article ID: 107242.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[23] Milham, M. P., Banich, M. T., Webb, A., Barad, V., Cohen, N. J., Wszalek, T. et al. (2001). The Relative Involvement of Anterior Cingulate and Prefrontal Cortex in Attentional Control Depends on Nature of Conflict. Cognitive Brain Research, 12, 467-473.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[24] Ogawa, H., Takeda, Y., & Yagi, A. (2002). Inhibitory Tagging on Randomly Moving Objects. Psychological Science, 13, 125-129.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[25] Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of Visual Orienting. In H. Bouma, & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and Performance X: Control of Language Processes (pp. 531-556). Erlbaum.
[26] Posner, M. I., Rafal, R. D., Choate, L. S., & Vaughan, J. (1985). Inhibition of Return: Neural Basis and Function. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2, 211-228.[CrossRef] 
[27] Reuter-Lorenz, P. A., Jha, A. P., & Rosenquist, J. N. (1996). What Is Inhibited in Inhibition of Return. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 367-378.[CrossRef] 
[28] Sapir, A., Hayes, A., Henik, A., Danziger, S., & Rafal, R. (2004). Parietal Lobe Lesions Disrupt Saccadic Remapping of Inhibitory Location Tagging. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 503-509.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[29] Scarpina, F., & Tagini, S. (2017). The Stroop Color and Word Test. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 557.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[30] Silton, R. L., Heller, W., Towers, D. N., Engels, A. S., Spielberg, J. M., Edgar, J. C. et al. (2010). The Time Course of Activity in Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex and Anterior Cingulate Cortex during Top-Down Attentional Control. NeuroImage, 50, 1292-1302.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[31] Taylor, T. L., & Klein, R. M. (1998). On the Causes and Effects of Inhibition of Return. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 625-643.[CrossRef] 
[32] Taylor, T. L., & Klein, R. M. (2000). Visual and Motor Effects in Inhibition of Return. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1639-1656.[CrossRef] 
[33] Thomas, L. E., & Lleras, A. (2009). Inhibitory Tagging in an Interrupted Visual Search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 1241-1250.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[34] Thornton, I. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2020). Searching through Alternating Sequences: Working Memory and Inhibitory Tagging Mechanisms Revealed Using the MILO Task. i-Perception, 11, 1-12.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[35] van Veen, V., Cohen, J. D., Botvinick, M. M., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2001). Anterior Cingulate Cortex, Conflict Monitoring, and Levels of Processing. NeuroImage, 14, 1302-1308.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[36] Vivas, A. B., & Fuentes, L. J. (2001). Stroop Interference Is Affected in Inhibition of Return. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 315-323.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[37] Vivas, A. B., Fuentes, L. J., Estevez, A. F., & Humphreys, G. W. (2007). Inhibitory Tagging in Inhibition of Return: Evidence from Flanker Interference with Multiple Distractor Features. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 320-326.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[38] Vivas, A. B., Humphreys, G. W., & Fuentes, L. J. (2003). Inhibitory Processing Following Damage to the Parietal Lobe. Neuropsychologia, 41, 1531-1540.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[39] Xu, J., Ma, F., Zhang, M., & Zhang, Y. (2015). Dissociation of Inhibitory Tagging from Inhibition of Return by Long-Term Training. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47, 981-991.[CrossRef] 
[40] Zhang, Y., Zhou, X., & Zhang, M. (2012). Temporary Inhibitory Tagging at Previously Attended Locations: Evidence from Event‐Related Potentials. Psychophysiology, 49, 1191-1199.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[41] Zhao, X., Li, X., & Shi, W. (2017). Influence of Inhibitory Tagging (IT) on Emotional and Cognitive Conflict Processing: Evidence from Event-Related Potentials. Neuroscience Letters, 657, 120-125.[CrossRef] [PubMed]