Visual masking during pursuit eye movements.

White, Charles

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.2.4.469

Cited by 20 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(37 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A brief target is followed by the mask and then a saccade. Typically, backward masking is robust when the mask falls on the same retinotopic location as the target (Irwin, Brown, & Sun, 1988; Sun & Irwin, 1987), that is, even if a saccade occurs between the target and the mask, the masking is still seen at the retinotopic location, although there are also reports of spatiotopic masking (Deubel, Bridgeman, & Schneider, 1996; Irwin 1992; MacRae, Butler, & Popiel, 1987; White, 1976; but see Jonides, Irwin, & Yantis, 1983 for a cautionary note about monitor persistence). In a recent study, De Pisapia, Kaunitz, and Melcher (2010) showed what they refer to as target “unmasking” when a saccade intervened between a target and a mask shown at the same spatial location.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Remapped visual masking

Hunt

Cavanagh

2011

Journal of Vision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cells in saccade control areas respond if a saccade is about to bring a target into their receptive fields (J. R. Duhamel, C. L. Colby, & M. R. Goldberg, 1992). This remapping process should shift the retinal location from which attention selects target information (P. Cavanagh, A. R. Hunt, S. R. Afraz, & M. Rolfs, 2010). We examined this attention shift in a masking experiment where target and mask were presented just before an eye movement. In a control condition with no eye movement, masks interfered with target identification only when they spatially overlapped. Just before a saccade, however, a mask overlapping the target had less effect, whereas a mask placed in the target’s remapped location was quite effective. The remapped location is the retinal position the target will have after the upcoming saccade, which corresponds to neither the retinotopic nor spatiotopic location of the target before the saccade. Both effects are consistent with a pre-saccadic shift in the location from which attention selects target information. In the case of retinally aligned target and mask, the shift of attention away from the target location reduces masking, but when the mask appears at the target’s remapped location, attention’s shift to that location brings in mask information that interferes with the target identification.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Remapped visual masking

Hunt

Cavanagh

2011

Journal of Vision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, Lehmkuhle and Fox (1980) have recently shown that masking effects are much stronger when the target and induction figures are perceived to lie in the same plane. White (1976) had earlier shown that optimal masking effects occur when the target and induction figures are perceived as located in adjacent spatial positions rather than when they are retinally adjacent. Although retinal adjacency and perceived adjacency (in the frontal plane) are normally confounded, White teased them apart using a moving-eye technique analogous to that introduced by Rock and Ebenholtz (1962) to demonstrate that stroboscopic motion requires a change of perceived location, not a change of retinal location.…”

Section: Percept-percept Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When does perceived lightness depend on perceived spatial arrangement?

Gilchrist

1980

Perception & Psychophysics

211

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experiments have recently been reported in which a decisive change in perceived lightness was produced by a change in perceived spatial position, with no important change in the retinal image. A number of previous studies had found little or no such effect. Experiments of the kind that produced these effects and of the kind that do not produce these effects are presented here. The main differences between these two kinds of experiments are discussed. One difference is whether the display allows the target to be part of one ratio in one spatial position but another in the other spatial position. Another difference concerns the range of luminances within the display. Also discussed are the implications of these findings for cognitive vs. S-R theories, the order of processing depth and lightness, laboratory data vs. experience, the role of lateral inhibition in lightness perception, and theories of lightness perception in general.

show abstract

“…This forces us to emphasize that the Table 2 The Main Table for Selected Experimental Findings Subliminal effects of masked semantic information (e.g., Allport, 1977;Marcel & Patterson, 1978) -t Subliminal effects of masked geometric information (e.g., Kapustin, 1979;Gellatly, 1980) Masking increase with the increase in TS energy (e.g., Purcell et al, 1969Purcell et al, , 1975 The "halo" effect (e.g., Werner, 1935;Stoper & Mansfield, 1978) X Reappearance of TS after TS-MS fast recycling (Schiller & Smith, 1966) X Lack of spatial frequency specificity of metacontrast at the whole SOA range (Growney, 1978) X Nonretinotopic ("spatiotopic") nature of masking (White, 1976;Lehmkuhle & Fox, 1980) Asymmetric nonrandom recombinations of portions of TS and MS into single percept (Harcum & Nice, 1975) Dependence of MS perceptive quality on spatial distribution of the backwardmasked TS elements (Carlson & Mayzner, 1977) X Cohene and Bechtoldt effect (1974 -t The early EP components unchanged with masking (Bridgeman, 1980) Operational sufficiency index" term "nonspecific," which refers to certain physiological realities, does not necessarily mean something that is spatially undifferentiated. We can explain the asymmetric nature of traditional metacontrast masking, in which the disk-ring sequence leads to nonmonotonic backward masking but the ring-disk sequence does not, as follows.…”

Section: Data From Metacontrast Masking Studies In Llgbtof Tbeproposementioning

confidence: 99%

The process of perceptual retouch: Nonspecific afferent activation dynamics in explaining visual masking

Bachmann¹

1984

Perception & Psychophysics

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

on the notion of interaction of the specific and nonspecific afferent visual systems is presented. Discussionis focused on nonmonotonicmasking functions. In particular, it is proposed that in order for visual information (patterns, forms, etc.) to be consciously perceived,both specificretina-genicula-striate impulses and nonspecificretina-reticulacortical impulses should converge in the same cortical space. Nonspecific activity is shown to be necessary for subjective awareness. This activity is shown to be of longer latency than specificactivity. It is concluded that trailing conscious-experience-generating impulses are elicited by collateral activity from the specific information received from the first stimulus. These impulses reach the cortex at the same moment as the specific activity of the second (masking)stimulus as coded,whichhas a relatively higher signal-to-noise ratio in the given retinotopically specJfied cortical space. Consequently, subjects consciously perceive the second stimulus. This operation of awareness generation is termed perceptual retouch and is considered as a special psychologicalmechanism worthy of psychophysical study.Classical works in the physiology of arousal and nonspecific sensory systems have proved convincingly that the neurophysiological substrate necessary for energizing the brain and providing sufficient activity for the manifestation of conscious experience (perceptual awareness) is located subcortically and consists of the brainstem reticular formation and nonspecific thalamic activating system (Dixon, 1971; Jasper, Proctor, Knighton, Noshay, & Costello, 1958;Magoun, 1958;Riklan& Levita, 1969;Smirnov, Muchnik, & Shandurina, 1978; Worden, Swazey, & Adelman, 1975).The importance of energetic, rather than purely structural or algoristic, processes in visual masking and information processing is rarely stressed. It has been shown, however, that percepts evolve and accumulate over time (Eriksen & Schultz, 1978). This perceptogenetic or microgenetic process takes a relatively long time (see Bachmann, 1977Bachmann, , 1980Flavell & Draguns, 1957;Kahneman & Norman, 1964;Kragh & Smith, 1970; Lange, 1893;Nikitin, 1905;Vekker, 1974). Furthermore, the time for specific impulses to reach the highest levels of the nervous system is much shorter than the whole microgenetic process. Thus, we have reason to believe that, first, much of this evolution of subjective experience ofThe author wishes to convey his sincerest thanks to Professor Charles W. Eriksen for his most generous help in making this article more idiomatic and succinct. The author's mailing address is: Department of Psychology, Tartu State University, 78 Tiigi Street, Tartu, Estonian SSR, 202400 U.S.S.R. the presented actual input consists of heterarchic cyclic activity rather than purely of afference, and, second, the temporally trailing nonspecific sensory activities playa crucial role in this process.The present article will argue that, in visual masking, the interaction of specific sensory systems with nonspecific "ene...

show abstract

Visual masking during pursuit eye movements.

Cited by 20 publications

References 19 publications

Remapped visual masking

Remapped visual masking

When does perceived lightness depend on perceived spatial arrangement?

The process of perceptual retouch: Nonspecific afferent activation dynamics in explaining visual masking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About