U-shaped masking functions in visual backward masking: Effects of target configuration and retinal position

Stewart, Alan L.; Purcell, Dean G.

doi:10.3758/bf03209373

Cited by 56 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This alteration in the appearance of a single point in the mask may be related to the plastic distortions described by Kolers (1972) in apparentmotion paradigms when the two stimuli are similar but not identical. Stewart and Purcell (1970) report a similar phenomenon in a metacontrast paradigm. The mask (a surrounding annulus) appeared to have a missing segment corresponding to the open portion of the previously presented test stimulus, which consisted of the letter C in different orientations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Practice reduces suppression in metacontrast and in apparent motion

Hogben

Lollo

1984

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A target display consisting of eight dots drawn randomly from a nine-dot square matrix was displayed for 10 msec and was followed, after intervals ranging from 0 to 160 msec, by either two flanking matrices (metacontrast condition) or one flanking matrix (apparent-motion condition). Observers were required to name the location of the missing dot within the target matrix. Identical U-shaped functions of perceptual suppression of the target matrix were obtained in both paradigms. In both cases, level of suppression decreased rapidly with practice so that performance became virtually unimpaired after five testing sessions. The basis of the practice effects was examined in Experiment 2 and was shown to reflect changes in criterion content. 441Perception of a brief visual target is impaired if a second stimulus (a mask) is displayed nearby and soon after. In a classic investigation of this effectknown as metacontrast masking-Alpern (1953) employed a rectangular target followed by a pair of rectangles, one to each side. When the stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) between target and mask was either very brief or very long, the target was perceived clearly and accurately. At intermediate SOAs, however, perception of the target was impaired. The same effect is obtained if the mask surrounds the target completely, rather than merely flanking it (e.g., Werner, 1935).Almost invariably, metacontrast masking effects are accompanied by an impression of motion between successive parts of the display. This correlative observation has prompted the conjecture that metacontrast and apparent motion effects may be causally related (Breitmeyer, Love, & Wepman, 1974;Kahneman, 1967). The relationship between the two phenomena was asserted most clearly by Kahneman (1967), who demonstrated the similarity of their temporal requirements. Kahneman (1967) employed a square target followed in time by either two flanking squares (metacontrast paradigm) or only one flanking square (apparent motion paradigm). He found that severity of masking and quality of apparent motion followed identical time courses. Kahneman (1967) also noted that the appearance of the first stimulus was degraded, not only in the metacontrast

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Practice reduces suppression in metacontrast and in apparent motion

Hogben

Lollo

1984

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In backward masking, it has been long known that features of the target can be perceived as being part of the mask, an effect termed feature transposition, feature inheritance, or feature attribution (Werner, 1935;Stewart & Purcell, 1970;Wilson & Johnson, 1985;Hofer, Walder, & Groner, 1989;Herzog & Koch, 2001;Enns, 2002;Sharikadze, Fahle, & Herzog, 2005;Öğmen et al, 2006;Otto et al, 2006). The close relationship between feature attribution and masking led some researchers to suggest that processing of features for moving stimuli and masking are linked causally by a…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retinotopy of visual masking and non-retinotopic perception during masking

Noory

Herzog

Öğmen

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the movements of the observer and those of objects in the environment, retinotopic representations are highly unstable during ecological viewing conditions. The phenomenal stability of our perception suggests that retinotopic representations are transformed into nonretinotopic representations. It remains to show, however, which visual processes operate under retinotopic representations and which ones operate under non-retinotopic representations. Visual masking refers to the reduced visibility of one stimulus, called the target, due to the presence of a second stimulus, called the mask. Masking has been used extensively to study the dynamic aspects of visual perception. Previous studies using Saccadic Stimulus Presentation Paradigm (SSPP) suggested both retinotopic and non-retinotopic bases for visual masking. In order to understand how the visual system deals with retinotopic changes induced by moving targets, we investigated the retinotopy of visual masking and the fate of masked targets under conditions that do not involve eye movements. We have developed a series of experiments based on a radial Ternus-Pikler display. In this paradigm, the perceived Ternus-Pikler motion is used as a non-retinotopic reference frame to pit retinotopic against non-retinotopic visual masking hypothesis. Our results indicate that both metacontrast and structure masking are retinotopic. We also show that, under conditions that allow observers to read-out effectively non-retinotopic feature attribution, the target becomes visible at a destination different from its retinotopic/ spatiotopic location. We discuss the implications of our findings within the context of ecological vision and dynamic form perception.

show abstract

“…With regard to the expected masking functions, one might derive two hypotheses. Since Type B masking is known to increase as stimuli are moved away from the fovea (e.g., Kolers & Rosner, 1960;Stewart & Purcell, 1970), one might expect U-shaped masking functions to be observed especially for targets presented in the far periphery. However in Experiment 1, U-shaped masking functions were obtained especially when crowding was weak (i.e., for the large spacing).…”

Section: Experiments 2a and 2bmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That is, performance should be lower for intermediate SOAs than for simultaneous presentation and for longer SOAs. According to the results found for metacontrast masking (Growney, 1977;Kolers & Rosner, 1960;Stewart & Purcell, 1970), one might expect Type B masking functions to occur, especially when spacing is small and eccentricity is large.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Masking by metacontrast refers to situations in which a target and a subsequent mask are presented in close spatial proximityfor example, when flanking characters are presented on each side of the target (e.g., Fehrer & Raab, 1962). Like crowding, metacontrast masking increases with decreasing spatial separation between a target and a mask (e.g., Growney, 1977) and with increasing eccentricity of the stimulus (e.g., Kolers & Rosner, 1960;Stewart & Purcell, 1970). In this sense, when subsequently presenting target and flankers in a usual crowding task, one might also talk about paracontrast and metacontrast masking, instead of forward and backward masking.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation