Apparent movement and metacontrast: A note on Kahneman’s formulation

Weisstein, Naomi; Growney, Ronald

doi:10.3758/bf03210651

Cited by 76 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are difficult to explain on the basis of brightness summation, apparent motion, transientsustained inhibition, or contour formation processes (suppression is contourlessl). The "shaping" assumptions are also supported by the data of Growney et al (1977), andGrowney (1969) which showed that the nonmonotonicity of the metacontrast function increased with a decrease in the spatial distance between TS and MS. The extent of the spatial interaction between TS and MS conflicted with the local inhibitory considerations of metacontrast.…”

Section: Data From Metacontrast Masking Studies In Llgbtof Tbeproposesupporting

confidence: 67%

The process of perceptual retouch: Nonspecific afferent activation dynamics in explaining visual masking

Bachmann¹

1984

Perception & Psychophysics

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

on the notion of interaction of the specific and nonspecific afferent visual systems is presented. Discussionis focused on nonmonotonicmasking functions. In particular, it is proposed that in order for visual information (patterns, forms, etc.) to be consciously perceived,both specificretina-genicula-striate impulses and nonspecificretina-reticulacortical impulses should converge in the same cortical space. Nonspecific activity is shown to be necessary for subjective awareness. This activity is shown to be of longer latency than specificactivity. It is concluded that trailing conscious-experience-generating impulses are elicited by collateral activity from the specific information received from the first stimulus. These impulses reach the cortex at the same moment as the specific activity of the second (masking)stimulus as coded,whichhas a relatively higher signal-to-noise ratio in the given retinotopically specJfied cortical space. Consequently, subjects consciously perceive the second stimulus. This operation of awareness generation is termed perceptual retouch and is considered as a special psychologicalmechanism worthy of psychophysical study.Classical works in the physiology of arousal and nonspecific sensory systems have proved convincingly that the neurophysiological substrate necessary for energizing the brain and providing sufficient activity for the manifestation of conscious experience (perceptual awareness) is located subcortically and consists of the brainstem reticular formation and nonspecific thalamic activating system (Dixon, 1971; Jasper, Proctor, Knighton, Noshay, & Costello, 1958;Magoun, 1958;Riklan& Levita, 1969;Smirnov, Muchnik, & Shandurina, 1978; Worden, Swazey, & Adelman, 1975).The importance of energetic, rather than purely structural or algoristic, processes in visual masking and information processing is rarely stressed. It has been shown, however, that percepts evolve and accumulate over time (Eriksen & Schultz, 1978). This perceptogenetic or microgenetic process takes a relatively long time (see Bachmann, 1977Bachmann, , 1980Flavell & Draguns, 1957;Kahneman & Norman, 1964;Kragh & Smith, 1970; Lange, 1893;Nikitin, 1905;Vekker, 1974). Furthermore, the time for specific impulses to reach the highest levels of the nervous system is much shorter than the whole microgenetic process. Thus, we have reason to believe that, first, much of this evolution of subjective experience ofThe author wishes to convey his sincerest thanks to Professor Charles W. Eriksen for his most generous help in making this article more idiomatic and succinct. The author's mailing address is: Department of Psychology, Tartu State University, 78 Tiigi Street, Tartu, Estonian SSR, 202400 U.S.S.R. the presented actual input consists of heterarchic cyclic activity rather than purely of afference, and, second, the temporally trailing nonspecific sensory activities playa crucial role in this process.The present article will argue that, in visual masking, the interaction of specific sensory systems with nonspecific "ene...

show abstract

Section: Data From Metacontrast Masking Studies In Llgbtof Tbeproposesupporting

confidence: 67%

The process of perceptual retouch: Nonspecific afferent activation dynamics in explaining visual masking

Bachmann¹

1984

Perception & Psychophysics

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is reminiscent of the debate regarding whether metacontrast masking and apparent motion reflect the same underlying mechanisms (e.g., Bischof & Di Lollo, 1995;Breitmeyer & Ganz, 1976;Di Lollo, Bischof, & Dixon, 1993;Fehrer, 1966;Kahneman, 1967;Stoper & Banffy, 1977). Although some researchers reported similarities between the two phenomena (e.g., Fehrer, 1966;Kahneman, 1967), others highlighted differences (e.g., Breitmeyer & Horman, 1981;Kolers, 1972;Stoper & Banffy, 1977;Weisstein & Growney, 1969). Breit meyer and Horman, for example, investigated the relationship between metacontrast masking and apparent motion by manipulating interstimulus interval (0-225 msec) and separation (0.14º-3.21º) between two stimuli and measuring both the magnitude of metacontrast masking and the quality of perceived motion.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 88%

Unmasking the standing wave of invisibility: An account in terms of object-mediated representational updating

Hein

Moore

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A central bar presented in counterphase with two flanking bars creates the perception of only two bars, instead of three, flickering (standing wave of invisibility illusion). Current explanations of this illusion highlight the importance of local interactions between the central bar and the flankers as a reason for the invisibility of the central bar. In three experiments, we show that the reduction in visibility of the central bar occurs even when the flankers are spatially separated from the central bar. Thus local mechanisms-low-level lateral inhibition or border-ownership competition-do not suffice to account for the decreased visibility. Furthermore, the reduced visibility of the central bar is accompanied by the perception of the flankers in apparent motion at all separations. We suggest an account of the standing wave phenomenon in terms of object updating: The representation of the central bar is updated with the representation of the flankers leaving the perception of just the flankers moving across space. The stimuli for the key conditions from this study, in QuickTime format, may be down loaded from

show abstract

“…This procedure assured that, except for onset and offset, the mask as well as the target were activating only sustained channels. However, under these conditions, neither of the observers reported any disappearance or decrease in the visi- (Alpern, 1953;Kolers & Rosner, 1960;Weisstein & Growney, 1969). The interaction between target-mask spatial separation and viewing eccentricity was also statistically significant for both observers' results [B.B., F(6,84)=6.5; M.K., F(6,84)=7.8; ps < .005].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…They, like Weisstein and Growney (1969), showed that at stimulus spatial separations at which one obtains strong stroboscopic motion and, hence, activation of spatiotemporal sequence analyzers in a two-transient paradigm, one can fail to obtain metacontrast brightness suppression. Hence, activation of spatiotemporal sequence analyzers cannot be even a sufficient condition for obtaining metacontrast in the general case, although it may be in restricted cases.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A single-transient masking paradigm

Breitmeyer

Rudd

1981

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual masking, as typically studied in the twotransient paradigm (Matin, 1975), involves suppression of the visibility of one brief stimulus, the target, by another (spatio-jtemporally contiguous brief stimulus, the mask. Recent neurophysiologically based theories of visual masking rely on the existence, in the higher mammalian visual system, of short-latency, fast transient channels which inhibit longer latency, slower sustained channels (for review, see Breitmeyer & Ganz, 1976). In particular, recent theoretical approachesto visual masking, namely, thoseof Breitmeyer & Ganz (1976) and Weisstein, Ozog, and Szoc (1975), make use of this two-channel, transient-sustained distinction. Both approaches share the assumption that the typical Ll-shaped or type B metacontrast function (Kolers, 1962) is a consequence of the inhibition of the slow, target-activated sustained channels by the faster mask-activated transient channels in the target-mask sequence. The two models are similar in the specification of conditions required to activate the transient channels. For Breitmeyer and Ganz's (1976) and Weisstein et aI.'s (1975) model, it is sufficient that the mask activate fast transient channels, although both models acknowledge that either target or mask can and does activate both transient and sustained channels. The activation of transient channels by the target is not regarded as a necessary condition for obtaining metacontrast masking.However, Matin (1975)proposed a model in which activationof spatiotemporalsequence detectors, termed target-mask, or T-M, neurons, are required to produce type B metacontrast functions. In other words, Matin suggests that transient neurons may be a substrate for the T-M sequence detectors and that, in addition to the activation of mask transient neurons (Breitmeyer & Ganz, 1976;Weisstein et al., 1975), activation of target transient neurons is also necessary for producing metacontrast. The present experiment demonstrates that Matin (1975) may have been misled in her theorizing by the prevailing methodological rather than physiological facts.M. E, Rudd's present address:

show abstract

Apparent movement and metacontrast: A note on Kahneman’s formulation

Abstract: Recently metacontrast has been described as a case of "impossible" apparent motion. Kahneman (J 967)

Cited by 76 publications

References 18 publications

The process of perceptual retouch: Nonspecific afferent activation dynamics in explaining visual masking

The process of perceptual retouch: Nonspecific afferent activation dynamics in explaining visual masking

Unmasking the standing wave of invisibility: An account in terms of object-mediated representational updating

A single-transient masking paradigm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About