Effect of object-substitution masking on the perceptual quality of object representations

Harrison, Geoffrey; Rajsic, Jason; Wilson, Diane

doi:10.1167/14.10.1060

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We adopted the statistical models that have been previously used in modeling VSTM (Bays, Catalao, & Husain, 2009;Zhang & Luck, 2008) and several visual phenomena such as crowding (Ester, Zilber, & Serences, 2015) and masking (Agaoglu, Agaoglu, Breitmeyer, & Ogmen, 2015;Harrison, Rajsic, & Wilson, 2014). The simplest model is a single Gaussian (referred to as the G model from now on) whose mean and standard deviation may be modulated by attention and/or masking.…”

Section: Statistical Modeling Of Response Errorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metacontrast masking and attention do not interact

Agaoglu

Breitmeyer

Öğmen

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual masking and attention have been known to control the transfer of information from sensory memory to visual short-term memory. A natural question is whether these processes operate independently or interact. Recent evidence suggests that studies that reported interactions between masking and attention suffered from ceiling and/or floor effects. The objective of the present study was to investigate whether metacontrast masking and attention interact by using an experimental design in which saturation effects are avoided. We asked observers to report the orientation of a target bar randomly selected from a display containing either two or six bars. The mask was a ring that surrounded the target bar. Attentional load was controlled by set-size and masking strength by the stimulus onset asynchrony between the target bar and the mask ring. We investigated interactions between masking and attention by analyzing two different aspects of performance: (i) the mean absolute response errors and (ii) the distribution of signed response errors. Our results show that attention affects observers' performance without interacting with masking. Statistical modeling of response errors suggests that attention and metacontrast masking exert their effects by independently modulating the probability of Bguessing^b ehavior. Implications of our findings for models of attention are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Statistical Modeling Of Response Errorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metacontrast masking and attention do not interact

Agaoglu

Breitmeyer

Öğmen

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In several studies, it was noted that a mixture of statistical models (e.g., combined Gaussian and Uniform distributions) provide a better account of data compared to a single one (e.g., Gaussian), even when the difference in the number of parameters is taken into account. Mixture models have been used in modeling VSTM [14,59,60,61], visual encoding [14,60], crowding [62,63], and masking [64,65]. An upshot of this approach is that it can provide a meaningful interpretation for the parameters of the model.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Exogenous and Endogenous Attention on Metacontrast Masking

Agaoglu

Breitmeyer

Öğmen

2018

Vision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To efficiently use its finite resources, the visual system selects for further processing only a subset of the rich sensory information. Visual masking and spatial attention control the information transfer from visual sensory-memory to visual short-term memory. There is still a debate whether these two processes operate independently or interact, with empirical evidence supporting both arguments. However, recent studies pointed out that earlier studies showing significant interactions between common-onset masking and attention suffered from ceiling and/or floor effects. Our review of previous studies reporting metacontrast-attention interactions revealed similar artifacts. Therefore, we investigated metacontrast-attention interactions by using an experimental paradigm, in which ceiling/floor effects were avoided. We also examined whether metacontrast masking is differently influenced by endogenous and exogenous attention. We analyzed mean absolute-magnitude of response-errors and their statistical distribution. When targets are masked, our results support the hypothesis that manipulations of the levels of metacontrast and of endogenous/exogenous attention have largely independent effects. Moreover, statistical modeling of the distribution of response-errors suggests weak interactions modulating the probability of “guessing” behavior for some observers in both types of attention. Nevertheless, our data suggest that any joint effect of attention and metacontrast can be adequately explained by their independent and additive contributions.

show abstract

Effect of object-substitution masking on the perceptual quality of object representations

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Metacontrast masking and attention do not interact

Metacontrast masking and attention do not interact

Effects of Exogenous and Endogenous Attention on Metacontrast Masking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About