Categorical information influences conscious perception: An interaction between object-substitution masking and repetition blindness

Abstract

The visual system is constantly bombarded with dynamic input. In this context, the creation of enduring object representations presents a particular challenge. We used object-substitution masking (OSM) as a tool to probe these processes. In particular, we examined the effect of target-like stimulus repetitions on OSM. In visual crowding, the presentation of a physically identical stimulus to the target reduces crowding and improves target perception, whereas in spatial repetition blindness, the presentation of a stimulus that belongs to the same category (type) as the target impairs perception. Across two experiments, we found an interaction between spatial repetition blindness and OSM, such that repeating a same-type stimulus as the target increased masking magnitude relative to presentation of a different-type stimulus. These results are discussed in the context of the formation of object files. Moreover, the fact that the inducer only had to belong to the same Btype^as the target in order to exacerbate masking, without necessarily being physically identical to the target, has important implications for our understanding of OSM per se. That is, our results show the target is processed to a categorical level in OSM despite effective masking and, strikingly, demonstrate that this category-level content directly influences whether or not the target is perceived, not just performance on another task (as in priming).

Object substitution masking and its relationship with visual crowding

“…The presence and position of distractors, or other display elements, can modulate the intensity with which OSM occurs, even when such elements are some distance from the location of the target. Our claim that OSM is dependent on non-local factors is in some respects similar to recently reported findings by Goodhew, Greenwood and Edwards (2016). These authors showed that the presence of a repeated stimulus of the same categorical type would affect OSM even though the repeated stimulus item was located some distance from the target on the viewed display.…”

Object-substitution masking weakens but does not eliminate shape interactions

“…Other researchers have demonstrated that even during OSM, information from other objects like shapes (Prime, Pluchino, Eimer, Dell'acqua, & Jolicoeur, 2011;Woodman & Luck, 2003) and arrows (Chen & Treisman, 2009) can still be processed with enough strength to influence attention. Semantic processing (Goodhew, Visser, Lipp, & Dux, 2011) and categorization of letters (Goodhew, Greenwood, & Edwards, 2016) is known to persist as well. Processes, such as feature integration, also might occur during OSM (Chakravarthi & Cavanagh, 2009; although see Gellatly et al, 2006;Jacoby et al, 2012).…”

What have we learned from two decades of object-substitution masking? Time to update: Object individuation prevails over substitution.

“…Repetition blindness. OSM interacts with repetition blindness (Goodhew, Greenwood, & Edwards, 2016). Repetition blindness refers to the discovery that repeating the identity of a stimulus close in time can impair the individuation of a unique episodic representation for both instances (Kanwisher, 1987).…”