{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03127792672028597, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0035746201966041107, 'mean_word_length': 5.120218579234972, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Working memory loads affect location-based negative priming differently than inhibition of return

Although some experimental research suggests that location-based negative priming (L-NP; slowed responding to stimuli presented at previously ignored locations) and inhibition of return (IOR; slowed responding to stimuli presented at previously attended locations) are caused by a common underlying mechanism, there is reason to doubt this claim. Evidence for this is briefly reviewed and four experiments are reported where L-NP and IOR are examined under different memory load conditions. We found that L-NP remained intact under a visual-spatial and verbal memory load (Experiments 1, 2, and 4) in accordance with predictions, but a visual-spatial memory load eliminated IOR (Experiment 3). These data support claims that IOR is dependent on visual-spatial memory and are the first to establish that L-NP, unlike identity-based negative priming (I-NP), is not reduced with a memory load. These data bolster claims that at least one of the processes that contribute to L-NP differs from the processes that produce IOR.