Vibrotactile masking: The role of response competition

Abstract

When two tactile patterns, a target and a nontarget pattern, are presented in dose temporal proximity to the same location, the nontarget pattern may interfere with the identification of the target. A series of experiments examined the extent to which the interference in target identification results from masking (interference in the representation of the target at an early stage of processing) or from response competition. A response competition view of pattern perception holds that both the target and nontarget are fully processed to the level of evoking responses. Interference is produced when subjects select the nontarget rather than the target. This view was tested with a paradigm developed in studies of selective attention. Pairs of tactile patterns were presented to subjects' left index fingerpads. The amount of interference produced by a nontarget that is physically different from a target depends on whether the nontarget is associated with the same response as the target or a different response. The amount of masking also depends on the set of target and nontarget patterns that are used. The results support the conclusion that subjects have available a representation of both the target and the nontarget and that a substantial portion of the interference previously attributed to masking may be due to response competition.

The effect of shape and location on temporal masking of spatial vibrotactile patterns

“…Craig (1995) has shown that interference between successive patterns is sometimes due to a combination of temporal masking and response competition. Furthermore, some of the present results appear to be consistent with a lateral masking explanation.…”

“…Craig (1995) suggested that when both target and masker representations are available to observers, response selection may be improved by providing observers information about the sequence ofpatterns to be presented. Informing observers ofthe target's location before each trial may improve response selection, leading to a reduction in the proportion of masker responses.…”

Perceptual processing at adjacent location son a single finger: Masking and response competition

“…Masking refers to interference in the identification of a target that occurs at a relatively early stage in processing, during which the masker in some way distorts the representation of the target (Craig, 1989(Craig, , 1995Evans, 1987;Evans & Craig, 1986). Response competition refers to interference that occurs at a later stage in processing in which representations of both the target and the masker are available and the observer mistakenly responds with the masker (Craig, 1995;Evans & Craig, 1992;Evans, Craig, & Rinker, 1992), Both masking and response competition may occur when patterns are presented to SLoc (Craig, 1995), When patterns are presented to locations on separate fingers, response competition is a major factor limiting performance (Craig & Evans, 1995;Evans & Craig, 1991, 1992Evans et aI., 1992;Rinker & Craig, 1994), No…”

“…A procedure called the 4-to-2 paradigm was used to separate the effects of masking and response competition (Craig, 1995;Evans & Craig, 1991, 1992Evans et aI., 1992). As is shown in Figure I, there were four stimuli (A, B, C, and D) but only two responses (I and 2).…”

“…A 4-to-2 paradigm was used (Craig, 1995), in which four stimuli were mapped to only two responses. Targets and nontargets were randomly selected from the set of four stimuli and presented to the same or adjacent locations on the same fingerpad.…”