Set size and mask duration do not interact in object-substitution masking

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 39, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 646-661

  Argyropoulos, Ioannis ^a   Gellatly, Angus ^a   Pilling, Michael ^a   Carter, Wakefield ^a  

^a OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Attention; Ceiling; Masking; Substitution; Updating

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PERCEPTION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SIZE PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84877882523     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0030240     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Argyropoulos, I. (2011, September). The elusive interaction of set size and mask duration in object substitution masking. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society, Cognitive Section, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
2. Argyropoulos, I., Gellatly, A., & Pilling, M. (2012). The effects of crowding, set size and mask duration on four-dot masking. Manuscript in preparation.
3. Averbach, E., & Coriell, A. S. (1961). Short-term memory in vision. Bell System Technical Journal, 40, 309-328.
4. Bachmann, T. (2006). Microgenesis of perception: Conceptual, psychophysical, and neurobiological aspects. In H. Ögmen & B. G. Breitmeyer (Eds.), The first half second: The microgenesis and temporal dynamics of unconscious and conscious visual processes (pp. 11-33). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Bischof, W. F., & Di Lollo, V. (1995). Motion and metacontrast with simultaneous onset of stimuli. Journal of the Optical Society of America: A. Optics, Image Science, and Vision, 12, 1623-1636. doi:10.1364/ JOSAA.12.001623
6. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436. doi:10.1163/156856897X00357
7. Di Lollo, V., Enns, J. T., & Rensink, R. A. (2000). Competition for consciousness among visual events: The psychophysics of reentrant visual processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 481-507. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.129.4.481
8. Dux, P. E., Visser, T. A., Goodhew, S. C., & Lipp, O. V. (2010). Delayed reentrant processing impairs visual awareness: An object-substitutionmasking study. Psychological Science, 21, 1242-1247. doi:10.1177/ 0956797610379866
9. Enns, J. T. (2004). Object substitution and its relation to other forms of visual masking. Vision Research, 44, 1321-1331. doi:10.1016/j.visres .2003.10.024
10. Enns, J. T., & Di Lollo, V. (1997). Object substitution: A new form of masking in unattended visual locations. Psychological Science, 8, 135- 139. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00696.x
11. Enns, J. T., & Di Lollo, V. D. (2000). What's new in visual masking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 345-352. doi:10.1016/S1364- 6613(00)01520-5
12. Felleman, D. J., & Van Essen, D. C. (1991). Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 1, 1-47.
13. Gellatly, A., Pilling, M., Cole, G., & Skarratt, P. (2006). What is being masked in object substitution masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1422-1435.
14. Goodhew, S. C., Dux, P. E., Lipp, O. V., & Visser, T. A. W. (2012). Understanding recovery from object substitution masking. Cognition, 122, 405-415. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.11.010
15. Goodhew, S. C., Visser, T. A. W., Lipp, O. V., & Dux, P. E. (2011). Competing for consciousness: Prolonged mask exposure reduces object substitution masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 588-596. doi:10.1037/a0018740
16. Guest, D., Gellatly, A., & Pilling, M. (2012). Reduced OSM for long duration targets: Individuation or items loaded into VSTM? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0027031
17. Kahan, T. A., & Lichtman, A. S. (2006). Looking at object-substitution masking in depth and motion: Toward a two-object theory of object substitution. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 437-446. doi:10.3758/ BF03193688
18. Kahneman, D. (1967). An onset-onset law for one case of apparent motion and metacontrast. Perception, & Psychophysics, 2, 577-584.
19. Kastner, S., & Ungerleider, S. K. L. G. (2000). Mechanisms of visual attention in the human cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23, 315-341. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.23.1.315
20. Kotsoni, E., Csibra, G., Mareschal, D., & Johnson, M. H. (2007). Electrophysiological correlates of common-onset visual masking. Neuropsychologia, 45, 2285-2293. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.02.023
21. Lleras, A., & Moore, C. M. (2003). When the target becomes the mask: Using apparent motion to isolate the object-level component of object substitution masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 106-120. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.1 .106
22. 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. doi:10.1007/s00426-006-0052-8
23. Mishkin, M., & Ungerleider, L. G. (1982). Contribution of striate inputs to the visuospatial functions of parieto-preoccipital cortex in monkeys. Behavioural Brain Research, 6, 57-77. doi:10.1016/0166- 4328(82)90081-X
24. Moore, C. M., & Lleras, A. (2005). On the role of object representations in substitution masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1171-1180. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.6 .1171
25. Most, S. B., Scholl, B. J., Clifford, E. R., & Simons, D. J. (2005). What you see is what you set: Sustained inattentional blindness and the capture of awareness. Psychological Review, 112, 217-242. doi:10.1037/0033- 295X.112.1.217
26. 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. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.28.3.682
27. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and Reality. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
28. Oriet, C., & Enns, J. T. (2010). The role of temporal synchrony in perceptual object formation and updating. Visual Cognition, 18, 1179- 1213.
29. Pashler, H. (1988). Familiarity and visual change detection. Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 369-378.
30. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437-442. doi: 10.1163/156856897X00366
31. Pilling, M., Gellatly, A., & Argyropoulos, I. (2012). Visual spatial attention does not affect common-onset four-dot masking. Manuscript submitted for publication.
32. Ramachandran, V. S., & Cobb, S. (1995). Visual attention modulates metacontrast masking. Nature, 373, 66-68. doi:10.1038/373066a0
33. Tata, M. S. (2002). Attend to it now or lose it forever: Selective attention, metacontrast masking, and object substitution. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 1028-1038. doi:10.3758/BF03194754
34. Tata, M. S., & Giaschi, D. E. (2004). Warning: Attending to a mask may be hazardous to your perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 262-268. doi:10.3758/BF03196568
35. Tsotsos, J. K. (1990). Analyzing vision at the complexity level. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 423-445. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00079577
36. Von Mühlenen, A., Rempel, M. I., & Enns, J. T. (2005). Unique temporal change is the key to attentional capture. Psychological Science, 16, 979-986. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01647.x
37. Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 601-621. doi:10.1037/0096- 1523.10.5.601