How does target duration affect object substitution masking?

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 36, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 1267-1279

  Gellatly, Angus ^a   Pilling, Michael ^a   Carter, Wakefield ^a   Guest, Duncan ^a  

^a OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Attention; Object individuation; Object substitution masking; Target duration

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; HUMAN; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SHORT TERM MEMORY; TIME PERCEPTION;

ATTENTION; CUES; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; TIME PERCEPTION;

EID: 77957364231     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0018733     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Alvarez G.A., Cavanagh P. The capacity of visual short-term memory is set both by visual information load and by number of objects. Psychological Science 2004, 2:106-111.
2. Bischof W.F., Di Lollo V. Motion and metacontrast with simultaneous onset of stimuli. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 1995, 12:1623-1636.
3. Brainard D.H. The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision 1997, 10:433-436.
4. Carlson T.A., Rauschenberger R., Verstraten F.A.J. No representation without awareness in the lateral occipital cortex. Psychological Science 2007, 18:298-302.
5. Di Lollo V., Dixon P. Two for forms of visual persistence in visual information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1988, 14:671-678.
6. Di Lollo V., Enns J.T., Rensink R.A. Competition for consciousness among visual events: The psychophysics of reentrant visual processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2000, 129:481-507.
7. Dubois J., Hamker F.H., VanRullen R. Attentional selection of noncontiguous locations: The spotlight is only transiently " split" Journal of Vision 2009, 9(5):1-11.
8. Enns J.T. Object substitution and its relation to other forms of visual masking. Vision Research 2004, 44:1321-1331.
9. Enns J.T., Di Lollo V. Object substitution: A new form of masking in unattended visual locations. Psychological Science 1997, 8:135-139.
10. Enns J.T., Di Lollo V. What's new in visual masking?. Trends in Cognitive Science 2000, 4:345-352.
11. Gellatly A.R.H., Cole G.G. Accuracy of target detection in new object and old object displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2000, 26:889-899.
12. Gellatly A.R.H., Pilling M., Cole G.G., Skarratt P. What is being masked in object substitution masking?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2006, 32:1422-1435.
13. Griffin I.C., Nobre A.C. Orienting attention to locations in internal representations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2003, 15:1176-1194.
14. Kahneman D., Treisman A. Changing views of attention and automaticity. Varieties of attention 1984, 29-61. Academic Press, New York, NY. R. Parasuraman, D.A. Davies (Eds.).
15. Kahneman D., Treisman A., Gibbs B.J. The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology 1992, 24:175-219.
16. Kanwisher N. Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation. Cognition 1987, 27:117-143.
17. Landman R., Spekreijse H., Lamme V.A.F. Large capacity storage of integrated objects before change blindness. Vision Research 2003, 43:149-164.
18. Lepsien J., Nobre A.C. Attentional modulation of object representations in working memory. Cerebral Cortex 2007, 17:2072-2083.
19. Lim S.W.H., Chua F.K. Object substitution masking: When does mask preview work?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2008, 34:1108-1115.
20. Lleras A., Moore C.M. When the target becomes a mask: Using apparent motion to isolate the object component of object-substitution masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2003, 29:106-120.
21. Luck S.J., Vogel E.K. The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature 1997, 390:279-281.
22. Macknik S.L., Martinez-Conde S. The role of feedback in visual masking and visual processing. Advances in Cognitive Psychology 2007, 3:125-152.
23. Makovski T., Jiang Y.V. Distributing versus focusing attention in visual short term memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2007, 14:1072-1078.
24. Moore C.M., Lleras A. On the role of object representations in object substitution masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2005, 31:1171-1180.
25. Neill W.T., Hutchinson K.A., Graves D.F. Masking by object substitution: Dissociation of masking and cuing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2002, 28:682-694.
26. O'Regan J.K., Rensink R.A., Clark J.J. Change blindness as a result of " mudsplashes." Nature 1999, 398:34.
27. Pelli D.G. The videotoolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision 1997, 10:437-442.
28. Rauschenberger R. When something old becomes something new: Spatiotemporal object continuity and attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2003, 29:600-615.
29. Reiss J.E., Hoffman J.E. Object substitution masking interferes with semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Psychological Science 2006, 17:1015-1020.
30. Reiss J.E., Hoffman J.E. Disruption of early face recognition processes by object substitution masking. Visual Cognition 2007, 15:789-798.
31. Sligte I.J., Scholte H.S., Lamme V.A.F. Are there multiple visual short term memory stores?. PLoS ONE 2008, 3(2):1-9.
32. Sperling G. The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 1960, 74(11):1-30.
33. Tata M.S., Giaschi D.E. Warning: Attending to a mask may be hazardous to your perception. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2004, 11:262-268.
34. Treisman A.M. Features and objects: The fourteenth Bartlett memorial lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1988, 40:201-237.
35. Treisman A.M., Schmidt H. Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects. Cognitive Psychology 1982, 14:107-141.
36. Turatto M., Angrilli A., Mazza V., Umilta C., Driver J. Looking without seeing the background change: Electrophysiological correlates of change detection versus change blindness. Cognition 2002, 84:1-10.
37. Vogel E.K., Woodman G.F., Luck S.J. Storage of features, conjunctions and objects in visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2001, 27:92-114.
38. Vogel E.K., Woodman G.F., Luck S.J. The time course of consolidation in visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2006, 32:1436-1451.
39. Watson D.G., Humphreys G.W. Visual marking: Prioritizing selection for new objects by top-down attentional inhibition. Psychological Review 1997, 104:90-122.
40. Wolfe J.M., Cave K.R. The psychophysical evidence for a binding problem in human vision. Neuron 1999, 24:11-17.
41. Wolfe J.M., Reinecke A., Brawn P. Why don't we see changes? The role of attentional bottlenecks and limited visual memory. Visual Cognition 2006, 14:749-780.
42. Woodman G.F., Luck S.J. Dissociations between attention, perception and awareness during object-substitution masking. Psychological Science 2003, 14:605-611.
43. Yantis S., Johnson D.N. Mechanisms of attentional priority. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1990, 16:812-825.