Endogenous cueing attenuates object substitution masking

Psychological Research

Volumn 74, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 422-428

  Germeys, Filip ^a,c   Pomianowska, I ^b   de Graef, P ^c   Zaenen, P ^c   Verfaillie, K ^c  

^a Campus Parnas   (Belgium)

^b TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; HUMAN; PERCEPTION; VISION;

CUES; HUMANS; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 77952424806     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-009-0263-x     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Bachmann, T. (2007). Binding binding: Departure points for a different version of the perceptual retouch theory. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 41-55.
2. Bar, M. (2003). A cortical mechanism for triggering top-down facilitation in visual object recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 600-609.
3. Bullier, J. (2001). Integrated model of visual processing. Brain Research Reviews, 36, 96-107.
4. Corbetta, M., Tansy, A. P., Stanley, C. M., Astafiev, S. V., Snyder, A. Z., & Shulman, G. L. (2005). A functional MRI study of preparatory signals for spatial location and objects. Neuropsychologia, 43, 2041-2056.
5. Cheal, M., & Lyon, D. R. (1991). Central and peripheral precueing of forced-choice discrimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 43A, 859-880.
6. Deubel, H. (2008). The time course of presaccadic attention shifts. Psychological Research, 72, 630-640.
7. Di Lollo, V., Enns, J. T., & Rensink, R. A. (2000). Competition for consciousness among visual events: The psychophysics of re-entrant visual processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 481-507.
8. Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433-458.
9. Enns, J. T. (2004). Object substitution and its relation to other forms of visual masking. Vision Research, 44, 1321-1331.
10. Enns, J. T., & Di Lollo, V. (1997). Object-substitution: A new form of masking in unattended visual locations. Psychological Science, 8, 135-139.
11. Eriksen, C. W., & Hoffman, J. E. (1973). The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 155-160.
12. Grossberg, S., & Versace, M. (2008). Spikes, synchrony, and attentive learning by laminar thalamo-cortical circuits. Brain Research, 1218, 278-312.
13. Hochstein, S., & Ahissar, M. (2002). View from the top: Hierarchies and reverse hierarchies in the visual system. Neuron, 36, 791-803.
14. Jiang, Y. H., & Chun, M. M. (2001). The spatial gradient of visual masking by object substitution. Vision Research, 41, 3121-3131.
15. Kahan, T. A., & Mathis, K. M. (2002). Gestalt grouping and common onset masking. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 1248-1259.
16. LaBerge, D. L., Brown, V., Carter, M., Bash, D., & Hartley, A. (1991). Reducing the effects of adjacent distractors by narrowing attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 65-76.
17. Lamme, V. A. F., & Roelfsema, P. R. (2000). The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing. Trends in Neurosciences, 23, 571-579.
18. Lim, S. W. H., & Chua, F. K. (2008). Object substitution masking: When does mask preview work? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1108-1115.
19. Luiga, I., & Bachmann, T. (2007). Different effects of the two types of spatial pre-cueing: What precisely is "attention" in Di Lollo's and Enns' substitution masking theory? Psychological Research, 71, 634-640.
20. Müller, H. J., & Rabbitt, P. M. (1989). Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: Time course of activation and resistance to interruption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 315-330.
21. Neill, W. T., Hutchison, K. A., & Graves, D. F. (2002). Masking by object substitution: Dissociation of masking and cuing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 682-694.
22. Tata, M. S. (2002). Attend to it now or lose it forever: Selective attention, metacontrast masking, and object substitution. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 1028-1038.
23. Tata, M. S., & Giaschi, D. E. (2004). Warning: Attending to a mask may be hazardous to your perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 262-268.
24. Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
25. Treisman, A., & Gormican, S. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review, 95, 15-48.
26. van der Heijden, A. H. C., & Eerland, E. (1973). The effects of cueing in a visual signal detection task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 496-503.
27. Woodman, G. F., & Luck, S. J. (2003). Dissociations among attention, perception, and awareness during object-substitution masking. Psychological Science, 14, 605-611.