Evidence for an interruption theory of backward masking.

Spencer, Terry J.; Shuntich, Richard J.

doi:10.1037/h0029510

Cited by 143 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

116

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…presented three stimuli in succession to the same foveal location, finding that integration rather than erasure best accounted for the fact that all the stimuli were partially accessible. Coltheart and Arthur (1972) point out that, although Liss (1968) has argued for interruption, his finding that different masking patterns varied in effectiveness presumably arises because of target-mask integration making it differentially difficult to extract target from mask; similarly, although Spencer and Shuntich (1970) suggest that interruption occurs at delays of over ISO msec, the fact that masks of different energy levels give similar results is consistent with either theory, while the existence of forward masking is inconsistent with the interruption view.…”

Section: Trace Storagementioning

confidence: 30%

Sensory storage reconsidered

Holding¹

1975

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Models of sensory storage appear to incorporate three features: capacity in excess of short-term memory, rapid decay of information, and an unprocessed trace as the storage medium. The evidence for each is examined in the visual and the auditory modes. The excess capacity hypothesis is rejected on the grounds that negative results are obtained when output interference and cue anticipation mechanisms are excluded. Rapid decay is seen as a minor effect which may not result from sensory storage. Limited trace storage appears to exist in the form of extremely brief sensory persistence, but applies only to normally attended stimuli; the pivotal concept of subsequent random access to a trace appears unsupported.

show abstract

Section: Trace Storagementioning

confidence: 30%

Sensory storage reconsidered

Holding¹

1975

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The interpreting phase may be regarded as performing some of the functions of the limited-capacity "central processor" hypothesized by Posner and Klein (1973). Examples of events taking place at the level of the interpreting phase are the instances of visual masking without spatial proximity of test and masking stimuli (Di Lollo, Lowe, & Scott, 1974) and the incidence of backward masking of ISIs exceeding about 100-150 msec (Scheerer, 1973;Spencer & Shuntich, 1970).…”

Section: A Sensory-coding Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal integration in visual memory.

Lollo¹

1980

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

408

309

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYIconic memory has often been likened to a sensory store whose contents drain away rapidly as soon as the inducing stimulus is turned off. Instances of short-lived visible persistence have been explained in terms of the decaying contents of iconic store. A fundamental requirement of this storage model is that strength of persistence should be a decreasing function of time elapsed since the cessation-not since the onset-of the inducing stimulation. That is, strength of visible persistence may be directly related-but not inversely related-to the duration of the inducing stimulus.Two complementary paradigms were utilized in the present studies. In the first paradigm performance was facilitated by visible persistence in that the task required the bridging of a temporal gap between two successive displays. In the second paradigm (forward visual masking by pattern), performance was impaired by lingering visible persistence of the temporally leading mask. Both paradigms yielded evidence of an inverse relationship between duration of inducing stimulus and duration of visible persistence.More specifically, in a task requiring temporal integration of a pattern displayed briefly in two successive portions, performance was severely impaired if the duration of the leading part exceeded about 100 msec. This suggests an inverse relationship between duration of inducing stimulus and duration of sensory persistence and allows the inference that visual persistence may be identified more fittingly with ongoing neural processes than with the decaying contents of an iconic store. In keeping with this suggestion, two experiments disconfirmed the conjecture that lack of temporal integration following long inducing stimuli could be ascribed to emergence of unitary form separately in the two portions of the display or to the triggering of some sort of discontinuity detection mechanism within the visual system. In added support of a "processing" model, two further studies showed that the severity of forward masking by pattern declines sharply as the duration of the leading mask is increased.This pattern of results is equally unsupportive of a storage theory of iconic persistence as of perceptual moment theory in any of its versions. This is so because both theories regard interstimulus interval rather than stimulus-onset asynchrony as the crucial factor in temporal integration. Neither can the results be explained in terms of receptor adaptation or of metacontrast suppression. The theory of inhibitory channel interactions can encompass the more prominent aspects of the results but fails to account for foveal suppression and for some crucial temporal effects.

show abstract

“…The evidence for integration theories is impressive , 1970;Turvey, 1973). In these accounts, integration masking is recognized as occurring at shorter stimulus onset asynchronies (as long as 150 msec) and interruption masking as occurring at longer asynchronies.…”

Section: University Ofillinois At Urbana-champaign Urbana Illinois 6mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only the former is reasonably compatible with the assumption that a mask, following stimulation, effectively limits the time available for stimulus processing. Interruption theories, of which there are several versions (Spencer & Shuntich, 1970;Turvey, 1973), have in common the assumption that a second arriving stimulus takes priority in processing and thus diverts the processing mechanisms from the first stimulus to the mask.…”

Section: University Ofillinois At Urbana-champaign Urbana Illinois 6mentioning

confidence: 99%