Comment on "Competition for consciousness among visual events: The psychophysics of reentrant visual processes" (Di Lollo, Enns &amp; Rensink, 2000).

Francis, Gregory; Hermens, Frouke

doi:10.1037/0096-3445.131.4.590

Cited by 39 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Common onset masking can be modeled by many of the existing feed-forward and lateral inhibition models of masking (Bischof & Di Lollo, 1995;Francis, 1997;Francis & Hermens, 2002) and by Growney (1978) and Growney et al (1977) experiments. ISI ϭ interstimulus interval.…”

Section: Temporal Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although it has been shown that these aspects can be explained with fairly simple models (Bridgeman, 1978;Francis & Hermens, 2002), often more complex mechanisms were assumed to be necessary, such as dual-channel interactions (Bachmann, 1994;Breitmeyer & Ganz, 1976;Ö gmen, 1993) or recurrent processing . Our results show once more that many temporal aspects of masking can be explained with a simple model structure.…”

Section: Temporal Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modeling spatial and temporal aspects of visual backward masking.

Hermens¹,

Luksys²,

Gerstner³

et al. 2008

Psychological Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual backward masking is a versatile tool for understanding principles and limitations of visual information processing in the human brain. However, the mechanisms underlying masking are still poorly understood. In the current contribution, the authors show that a structurally simple mathematical model can explain many spatial and temporal effects in visual masking, such as spatial layout effects on pattern masking and B-type masking. Specifically, the authors show that lateral excitation and inhibition on different length scales, in combination with the typical time scales, are capable of producing a rich, dynamic behavior that explains this multitude of masking phenomena in a single, biophysically motivated model.

show abstract

Section: Temporal Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Temporal Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling spatial and temporal aspects of visual backward masking.

Hermens¹,

Luksys²,

Gerstner³

et al. 2008

Psychological Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They also claimed that notions of reentrant processing are not necessary because all of V. Di Lollo et al 's data can be explained by feed-forward models. The authors show that G. Francis and F. Hermens's claims are vitiated by inappropriate modeling of attention and by ignoring important aspects of V. Di Lollo et al 's results.We note with interest Francis and Hermens's (2002) article, which purports to show that the findings reported by Di Lollo, Enns, and Rensink (2000) can be explained by other models of metacontrast masking. To buttress their claim, Francis and Hermens reported computer simulations showing that some of our results can be modeled by the theories of Bridgeman (1978), Francis (2000) and Weisstein (1968).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Object substitution without reentry?

Lollo

Enns

Rensink

2002

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(2002) used computer simulations to claim that many current models of metacontrast masking can account for the findings of V. Di Lollo, J. T. Enns, and R. A. Rensink (2000). They also claimed that notions of reentrant processing are not necessary because all of V. Di Lollo et al. 's data can be explained by feed-forward models. The authors show that G. Francis and F. Hermens's claims are vitiated by inappropriate modeling of attention and by ignoring important aspects of V. Di Lollo et al. 's results.We note with interest Francis and Hermens's (2002) article, which purports to show that the findings reported by Di Lollo, Enns, and Rensink (2000) can be explained by other models of metacontrast masking. To buttress their claim, Francis and Hermens reported computer simulations showing that some of our results can be modeled by the theories of Bridgeman (1978), Francis (2000) and Weisstein (1968). This claim has a good deal of surface appeal because it is parsimonious. It argues that our results can be explained without recourse to the new concept of object substitution. Parsimony, however, is achieved at the cost of inappropriate modeling of attention and modeling an incomplete portion of our masking data. Here, we reiterate our original claim that reentrant modeling is necessary for explaining our findings. We do so by showing that a plausible case for the sufficiency of feed-forward processes has not been made by Francis and Hermens. Modeling of AttentionModeling of the effects of attention in Di Lollo et al. 's (2000) study was based on the large literature on set-size effects in visual perception (Duncan & Humphreys, 1989; Eriksen,1995;Sperling, 1960;Treisman & Gelade, 1980). Accordingly, set size was modeled as though it influenced the time required for attention to be deployed to the location of the target. The larger the set size, the longer it takes to find the target.Current models of masking do not encompass attentional effects. This is one reason why they cannot account for Di Lollo et al. 's (2000) data. Francis and Hermens (2002) modeling attention as affecting the intensity of the mask. As set size is increased, the mask representation is assumed to become stronger whereas the target representation remains the same. We believe this modeling of attention to be inappropriate.It has long been known that the strength of metacontrast masking is directly related to mask intensity (Alpern, 1953). It is, therefore, unsurprising that weakening the mask reduces the metacontrast effect in all extant models. There is no need to expand current models along these lines because they already include the effect of mask intensity. The question that Francis and Hermens (2002) did not address is why anyone should model attention in terms of mask intensity unless they were aware of Di Lollo et al. 's (2000) results and did not have any other convenient mechanism for reducing the magnitude of the metacontrast effect. In more general terms, there is a substantial difference between claiming that current models can a...

show abstract

“…The answer is yes if one is willing to hypothesize that increases in set size lead to distributed attention, which makes the mask signal have a larger impact on the target signal (see Francis & Hermens, 2002). Figure 6B shows simulation results that demonstrate this property.…”

Section: Models Availablementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The key effect was that strong masking could occur for a spatially impoverished mask (four dots around a target) when the target and the mask had common onsets but the mask stayed on after the target disappeared. The new effect is quite interesting and is a new experimental finding; however, Francis and Hermens (2002) showed, through computer simulation, that some of the quantitative models of masking can account for the effect without a change in parameters. Thus, even mathematically sophisticated researchers have proposed their own quantitative model) may not recognize the properties of existing quantitative models of backward masking.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%