Back to all available

Inhibition of return as a mediator between openness to experience and visuospatial ability

psychiatry-and-psychology
mental-health

Abstract

Background. Openness to experience—a core dimension of the Big Five personality framework—has been increasingly linked to cognitive functioning, though the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Visuospatial ability (VA), a key cognitive domain involved in perception, memory, and problem-solving, has shown associations with Openness in prior research. Inhibition of return (IOR), a bottom-up attentional mechanism characterized by delayed responses to previously attended spatial locations, may act as a cognitive intermediary by influencing visual attentional dynamics.

Objective. This study investigated whether IOR mediates the relationship between Openness and VA, offering new insights into personality-related differences in attentional processing.

Methods. A total of 290 healthy adults completed standardized assessments of personality traits (NEO-FFI), cognitive function (RBANS), and a MATLAB-based exogenous cueing paradigm to quantify IOR. △LRT_s, a transformed metric representing IOR strength, was calculated as the response time difference between valid and invalid trials. Group comparisons, correlation analyses, and mediation models were conducted using SPSS and the PROCESS macro, controlling for age, gender, and education.

Results. Participants with high Openness scores demonstrated significantly higher VA and stronger IOR effects (i.e., larger △LRT_s) than those with low Openness (both p < 0.001). Correlational analyses revealed positive associations among Openness, △LRT_s, and VA. Mediation analysis confirmed that △LRT_s partially mediated the relationship between Openness and VA (indirect effect: B = 0.058, 95% CI [0.011, 0.120]), suggesting that IOR contributes to the visuospatial advantage observed in individuals high in Openness.

Conclusions. This study provides novel evidence that IOR serves as a mediating attentional mechanism linking Openness to enhanced visuospatial performance. These findings highlight the dynamic interaction between personality traits and low-level cognitive processes, suggesting that IOR may represent a neurocognitive pathway through which Openness facilitates efficient attentional allocation. The results have implications for understanding individual differences in cognitive functioning.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].