2010
DOI: 10.3758/app.72.2.398
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Unmasking the standing wave of invisibility: An account in terms of object-mediated representational updating

Abstract: A central bar presented in counterphase with two flanking bars creates the perception of only two bars, instead of three, flickering (standing wave of invisibility illusion). Current explanations of this illusion highlight the importance of local interactions between the central bar and the flankers as a reason for the invisibility of the central bar. In three experiments, we show that the reduction in visibility of the central bar occurs even when the flankers are spatially separated from the central bar. Thu… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

2
16
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
2
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Studies of visual masking that vary spatial proximity between mask and target often find a decrease in masking with spatial separation (Kolers & Rosner, 1960;Growney et al, 1977;Breitmeyer & Horman, 1981;Breitmeyer, Rudd, & Dunn, 1981). However, the fall-off in masking strongly depends on stimulus size, eccentricity, and task, and masking can still occur with large spatial separations (Growney et al, 1977;Hein & Moore, 2010). Note that in our experiment eccentricity of the masked stimulus was 38.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 49%
“…Studies of visual masking that vary spatial proximity between mask and target often find a decrease in masking with spatial separation (Kolers & Rosner, 1960;Growney et al, 1977;Breitmeyer & Horman, 1981;Breitmeyer, Rudd, & Dunn, 1981). However, the fall-off in masking strongly depends on stimulus size, eccentricity, and task, and masking can still occur with large spatial separations (Growney et al, 1977;Hein & Moore, 2010). Note that in our experiment eccentricity of the masked stimulus was 38.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 49%
“…Another related interpretation of substitution masking is that it occurs when the visual system fails to assign different object tokens to the target and the mask (Enns, Lleras, & Moore, 2009;Hein & Moore, 2010;Lleras & Moore, 2003;Moore & Lleras, 2005). Object tokens are assigned to objects in the environment in order to maintain a stable representation of these objects as the information sampled from the external world changes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is reason to think, however, that motion and object correspondence processes are at least partially separable (Hein & Cavanagh, 2012; Moore & Hein, 2010a; Moore & Hein, 2010b; Moore & Hein, 2012). …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%