Object substitution masking and its relationship with visual crowding

Camp, Sarah; Pilling, Michael J.; Gellatly, Angus

doi:10.3758/s13414-017-1316-7

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Osm and The Role Of Attentionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Many early studies of OSM were confounded by the fact that performance was at ceiling in some conditions. The earlier reported interactions between display set size and OSM were accounted for either by this confound (Argyropoulos, Gellatly, Pilling, & Carter, 2013; Filmer, Mattingley, & Dux, 2014) or by other processes such as visual crowding (Camp, Pilling, Argyropoulos, & Gellatly, 2015; Camp et al., 2017). Experiments that control for ceiling effects have generally found no influence of attentional variables, either in its spatial or temporal manifestation, on masking (Agaoglu, Agaoglu, Breitmeyer, & Öğmen, 2015; Filmer, Wells-Peris, & Dux, 2017; Pilling, Gellatly, Argyropoulos, & Skarratt, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Because of the properties of OSM, most theories assume that the phenomenon largely represents the outcome of object-level interactions (Di Lollo et al., 2000; Enns, Lleras, & Moore, 2009; Goodhew, 2017; Moore & Lleras, 2005) and not the sorts of low-level spatiotemporal interactions that have been argued to occur in conventional forms of masking (Breitmeyer & Ganz, 1976). Consequently, OSM is of particular interest for researchers understanding the process by which object representations are formed in early vision (Camp, Pilling, & Gellatly, 2017; Enns, Lleras, & Moore, 2009; Goodhew, Edwards, Boal, & Bell, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Perceptual Errors Support the Notion of Masking by Object Substitution

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments examined the effect of Object Substitution Masking (OSM) on the perceptual errors in reporting the orientation of a target. In Experiment 1 a four-dot trailing mask was compared with a simultaneous-noise mask. In Experiment 2, the four-dot and noise masks were factorially-varied. Responses were modelled using a mixture regression-model and Bayesianinference to deduce whether the relative impacts of OSM on guessing and precision were the same as those of a noise mask, and thus whether the mechanism underpinning OSM is based on increasing noise rather than a substitution process. Across both experiments, OSM was associated with an increased guessing-rate when the mask trailed target offset, and a reduction in the precision of the target representation (although the latter was less reliable across the two experiments). Importantly, the noise mask also influenced both guessing and precision, but in a different manner, suggesting that OSM is not simply caused by increasing noise. In Experiment 2 the effects of OSM and simultaneous-noise interacted, suggesting the two manipulations involve common mechanisms. Overall results suggest that OSM is often a consequence of a substitution process, but there is evidence that the mask increases noise levels on trials where substitution doesn't occur.

show abstract

Section: Osm and The Role Of Attentionmentioning

confidence: 98%