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

Hein, Elisabeth; Moore, Cathleen M.

doi:10.3758/app.72.2.398

Cited by 9 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

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%

Masking the saccadic smear

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Static visual stimuli are smeared across the retina during saccades, but in normal conditions this smear is not perceived. Instead, we perceive the visual scene as static and sharp. However, retinal smear is perceived if stimuli are shown only intrasaccadically, but not if the stimulus is additionally shown before a saccade begins, or after the saccade ends (Campbell & Wurtz, 1978). This inhibition has been compared to forward and backward metacontrast masking, but with spatial relations between stimulus and mask that are different from ordinary metacontrast during fixation. Previous studies of smear masking have used subjective measures of smear perception. Here we develop a new, objective technique for measuring smear masking, based on the spatial localization of a gap in the smear created by very quickly blanking the stimulus at various points during the saccade. We apply this technique to show that smear masking survives dichoptic presentation (suggesting that it is therefore cortical in origin), as well as separations of as much as 6° between smear and mask.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 49%

Masking the saccadic smear

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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%

The effect of spatial competition between object-level representations of target and mask on object substitution masking

Guest

Gellatly

Pilling

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the processes determining object substitution masking (OSM) is thought to be the spatial competition between independent object file representations of the target and mask (e.g., Kahan & Lichtman, 2006). In a series of experiments, we further examined how OSM is influenced by this spatial competition by manipulating the overlap between the surfaces created by the modal completion of the target (an outline square with a gap in one of its sides) and the mask (a four-dot mask). The results of these experiments demonstrate that increasing the spatial overlap between the surfaces of the target and mask increases OSM. Importantly, this effect is not caused by the mask interfering with the processing of the target features it overlaps. Overall, the data indicate, consistent with Kahan and Lichtman, that OSM can arise through competition between independent target and mask representations.

show abstract

“…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%

Illumination frame of reference in the object-reviewing paradigm: A case of luminance and lightness.

Fiedler¹,

Moore²

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study combines the object-reviewing paradigm (Kahneman, Treisman, & Gibbs, 1990) with the checkershadow illusion (Adelson, 1995) in order to contrast the effects of objects’ luminance versus lightness on the object-specific preview benefit. To this end, we manipulated objects’ luminance and the amount of illumination given by an informative background scene in four experiments. In line with previous studies (Moore, Stephens, & Hein, 2010), there was no object-specific preview benefit when objects were presented on a uniformly colored background and luminance switched between objects. In contrast, when objects were presented on the checkershadow illusion background which provided an explanation for the luminance switch, a reliable object-specific preview benefit was observed. This suggests that object correspondence as measured by the object-reviewing paradigm can be influenced by scene-induced, perceived lightness of objects’ surfaces. We replicated this finding and moreover showed that the scene context only influences the object-specific preview benefit if the objects are perceived as part of the background scene.

show abstract

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

Cited by 9 publications

References 41 publications

Masking the saccadic smear

Masking the saccadic smear

The effect of spatial competition between object-level representations of target and mask on object substitution masking

Illumination frame of reference in the object-reviewing paradigm: A case of luminance and lightness.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About