Masking interrupts figure-ground signals in V1

Population responses in V1 encodes stimulus visibility in backward masking

“…In monkey T, the RT increased from 207.28 ± 7.45 ms when the SOA was long to 234.45 ± 7.34 ms when the SOA was short ( p < 0.001 for both monkeys). These behavioral results are consistent with previous reports from humans 6 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 and monkeys 12 , 29 , 30 , 31 that performed a BM task. Moreover, the RTs in error trials (trials in which the animal has reported on perceiving the opposite target to that presented) were significantly longer than the RTs in the correct trials ( Figures S1 A and S1B) by an average of 57.6 ms and 38.7 ms, in monkey F and T, respectively ( p < 0.001 for both monkeys, for all SOAs combined).…”

“…Moreover, we found a higher correlation and larger slope between the FGm and the SOA duration for the late FGm as compared with the early FGm. This is in accordance with Lamme et al, 12 who recorded the spiking activity of V1 neurons in monkeys and showed that the FGm signals are selectively and strongly suppressed at SOAs that induced invisibility of the stimulus. Several studies have proposed that FGm depends on feedback from extra-striate areas.…”

Population responses in V1 encodes stimulus visibility in backward masking

“…In monkey T, the RT increased from 207.28 ± 7.45 ms when the SOA was long to 234.45 ± 7.34 ms when the SOA was short ( p < 0.001 for both monkeys). These behavioral results are consistent with previous reports from humans 6 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 and monkeys 12 , 29 , 30 , 31 that performed a BM task. Moreover, the RTs in error trials (trials in which the animal has reported on perceiving the opposite target to that presented) were significantly longer than the RTs in the correct trials ( Figures S1 A and S1B) by an average of 57.6 ms and 38.7 ms, in monkey F and T, respectively ( p < 0.001 for both monkeys, for all SOAs combined).…”

“…Moreover, we found a higher correlation and larger slope between the FGm and the SOA duration for the late FGm as compared with the early FGm. This is in accordance with Lamme et al, 12 who recorded the spiking activity of V1 neurons in monkeys and showed that the FGm signals are selectively and strongly suppressed at SOAs that induced invisibility of the stimulus. Several studies have proposed that FGm depends on feedback from extra-striate areas.…”

The dissociations of visual processing of “hole” and “no‐hole” stimuli: An functional magnetic resonance imaging study

“…Similarly, the fMRI results revealed a decreased neural activity in response to no‐hole stimuli in the LGN and early visual cortex under the short SOA condition. The ROI result is consistent with previous findings, which have shown that backward masking can suppress conscious perception of targets and attenuate neural activation of the visual pathway, possibly as early as in the LGN and the early visual cortex (Lamme et al., ). The behavioral and ROI results indicated that the visual awareness of no‐hole stimuli was correlated with the brain activity of the cortical route via the LGN to the early visual cortex.…”

Effects of binocular suppression on surround suppression

“…Therefore, this orientation-specific suppression may provide a substrate for segregation of figures and objects from the backgrounds of visual images (DeAngelis et al, 1994;Lamme, 1995). Furthermore, the present result that an invisible surround cannot induce the late SS is consistent with previous observations that the contextual modulation related to the figure-ground segregation is prevented in the absence of awareness (Lamme, Zipser, & Spekreijse, 2002;Supèr, Spekreijse, & Lamme, 2001). This consistency may corroborate the role of the late SS in the figureground segregation.…”

Population responses in V1 encodes stimulus visibility in backward masking

“…In monkey T, the RT increased from 207.28 ± 7.45 ms when the SOA was long to 234.45 ± 7.34 ms when the SOA was short ( p < 0.001 for both monkeys). These behavioral results are consistent with previous reports from humans 6 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 and monkeys 12 , 29 , 30 , 31 that performed a BM task. Moreover, the RTs in error trials (trials in which the animal has reported on perceiving the opposite target to that presented) were significantly longer than the RTs in the correct trials ( Figures S1 A and S1B) by an average of 57.6 ms and 38.7 ms, in monkey F and T, respectively ( p < 0.001 for both monkeys, for all SOAs combined).…”

“…Moreover, we found a higher correlation and larger slope between the FGm and the SOA duration for the late FGm as compared with the early FGm. This is in accordance with Lamme et al, 12 who recorded the spiking activity of V1 neurons in monkeys and showed that the FGm signals are selectively and strongly suppressed at SOAs that induced invisibility of the stimulus. Several studies have proposed that FGm depends on feedback from extra-striate areas.…”

The dissociations of visual processing of “hole” and “no‐hole” stimuli: An functional magnetic resonance imaging study

“…Similarly, the fMRI results revealed a decreased neural activity in response to no‐hole stimuli in the LGN and early visual cortex under the short SOA condition. The ROI result is consistent with previous findings, which have shown that backward masking can suppress conscious perception of targets and attenuate neural activation of the visual pathway, possibly as early as in the LGN and the early visual cortex (Lamme et al., ). The behavioral and ROI results indicated that the visual awareness of no‐hole stimuli was correlated with the brain activity of the cortical route via the LGN to the early visual cortex.…”

Effects of binocular suppression on surround suppression

“…Therefore, this orientation-specific suppression may provide a substrate for segregation of figures and objects from the backgrounds of visual images (DeAngelis et al, 1994;Lamme, 1995). Furthermore, the present result that an invisible surround cannot induce the late SS is consistent with previous observations that the contextual modulation related to the figure-ground segregation is prevented in the absence of awareness (Lamme, Zipser, & Spekreijse, 2002;Supèr, Spekreijse, & Lamme, 2001). This consistency may corroborate the role of the late SS in the figureground segregation.…”

Population responses in V1 encodes stimulus visibility in backward masking

“…In monkey T, the RT increased from 207.28 ± 7.45 ms when the SOA was long to 234.45 ± 7.34 ms when the SOA was short ( p < 0.001 for both monkeys). These behavioral results are consistent with previous reports from humans 6 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 and monkeys 12 , 29 , 30 , 31 that performed a BM task. Moreover, the RTs in error trials (trials in which the animal has reported on perceiving the opposite target to that presented) were significantly longer than the RTs in the correct trials ( Figures S1 A and S1B) by an average of 57.6 ms and 38.7 ms, in monkey F and T, respectively ( p < 0.001 for both monkeys, for all SOAs combined).…”

“…Moreover, we found a higher correlation and larger slope between the FGm and the SOA duration for the late FGm as compared with the early FGm. This is in accordance with Lamme et al, 12 who recorded the spiking activity of V1 neurons in monkeys and showed that the FGm signals are selectively and strongly suppressed at SOAs that induced invisibility of the stimulus. Several studies have proposed that FGm depends on feedback from extra-striate areas.…”

The dissociations of visual processing of “hole” and “no‐hole” stimuli: An functional magnetic resonance imaging study

“…Similarly, the fMRI results revealed a decreased neural activity in response to no‐hole stimuli in the LGN and early visual cortex under the short SOA condition. The ROI result is consistent with previous findings, which have shown that backward masking can suppress conscious perception of targets and attenuate neural activation of the visual pathway, possibly as early as in the LGN and the early visual cortex (Lamme et al., ). The behavioral and ROI results indicated that the visual awareness of no‐hole stimuli was correlated with the brain activity of the cortical route via the LGN to the early visual cortex.…”

Effects of binocular suppression on surround suppression

“…Therefore, this orientation-specific suppression may provide a substrate for segregation of figures and objects from the backgrounds of visual images (DeAngelis et al, 1994;Lamme, 1995). Furthermore, the present result that an invisible surround cannot induce the late SS is consistent with previous observations that the contextual modulation related to the figure-ground segregation is prevented in the absence of awareness (Lamme, Zipser, & Spekreijse, 2002;Supèr, Spekreijse, & Lamme, 2001). This consistency may corroborate the role of the late SS in the figureground segregation.…”