Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 4/2010

01-07-2010 | Original Article

Endogenous cueing attenuates object substitution masking

Auteurs: Filip Germeys, I. Pomianowska, P. De Graef, P. Zaenen, K. Verfaillie

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2010

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Object substitution masking (OSM) is a form of visual masking in which a briefly presented target surrounded by four small dots is masked by the continuing presence of the four dots after target offset. A major parameter in the prediction of OSM is the time required for attention to be directed to the target following its onset. Object substitution theory (Di Lollo et al. in J Exp Psychol Gen 129:481–507, 2000) predicts that the sooner attention can be focused at the target’s location, the less masking will ensue. However, recently Luiga and Bachmann (Psychol Res 71:634–640, 2007) presented evidence that precueing of attention to the target location prior to target-plus-mask onset by means of a central (endogenous) arrow cue does not reduce OSM. When attention was cued exogenously, OSM was attenuated. Based on these results, Luiga and Bachmann argued that object substitution theory should be adapted by differentiating the ways of directing attention to the target location. The goal of the present study was to further examine the dissociation between the effects of endogenous and exogenous precueing on OSM. Contrary to Luiga and Bachmann, our results show that prior shifts of attention to the target location initiated by both exogenous and endogenous cues reduce OSM as predicted by object substitution theory and its computational model CMOS.
Literatuur
go back to reference Bachmann, T. (2007). Binding binding: Departure points for a different version of the perceptual retouch theory. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 41–55.CrossRef Bachmann, T. (2007). Binding binding: Departure points for a different version of the perceptual retouch theory. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 41–55.CrossRef
go back to reference Bar, M. (2003). A cortical mechanism for triggering top–down facilitation in visual object recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 600–609.CrossRefPubMed Bar, M. (2003). A cortical mechanism for triggering top–down facilitation in visual object recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 600–609.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Deubel, H. (2008). The time course of presaccadic attention shifts. Psychological Research, 72, 630–640.CrossRefPubMed Deubel, H. (2008). The time course of presaccadic attention shifts. Psychological Research, 72, 630–640.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
go back to reference Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433–458.CrossRefPubMed Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433–458.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Enns, J. T. (2004). Object substitution and its relation to other forms of visual masking. Vision Research, 44, 1321–1331.CrossRefPubMed Enns, J. T. (2004). Object substitution and its relation to other forms of visual masking. Vision Research, 44, 1321–1331.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Enns, J. T., & Di Lollo, V. (1997). Object-substitution: A new form of masking in unattended visual locations. Psychological Science, 8, 135–139.CrossRef Enns, J. T., & Di Lollo, V. (1997). Object-substitution: A new form of masking in unattended visual locations. Psychological Science, 8, 135–139.CrossRef
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Grossberg, S., & Versace, M. (2008). Spikes, synchrony, and attentive learning by laminar thalamo-cortical circuits. Brain Research, 1218, 278–312.CrossRefPubMed Grossberg, S., & Versace, M. (2008). Spikes, synchrony, and attentive learning by laminar thalamo-cortical circuits. Brain Research, 1218, 278–312.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Hochstein, S., & Ahissar, M. (2002). View from the top: Hierarchies and reverse hierarchies in the visual system. Neuron, 36, 791–803.CrossRefPubMed Hochstein, S., & Ahissar, M. (2002). View from the top: Hierarchies and reverse hierarchies in the visual system. Neuron, 36, 791–803.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Jiang, Y. H., & Chun, M. M. (2001). The spatial gradient of visual masking by object substitution. Vision Research, 41, 3121–3131.CrossRefPubMed Jiang, Y. H., & Chun, M. M. (2001). The spatial gradient of visual masking by object substitution. Vision Research, 41, 3121–3131.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Kahan, T. A., & Mathis, K. M. (2002). Gestalt grouping and common onset masking. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 1248–1259. Kahan, T. A., & Mathis, K. M. (2002). Gestalt grouping and common onset masking. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 1248–1259.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Tata, M. S. (2002). Attend to it now or lose it forever: Selective attention, metacontrast masking, and object substitution. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 1028–1038. Tata, M. S. (2002). Attend to it now or lose it forever: Selective attention, metacontrast masking, and object substitution. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 1028–1038.
go back to reference Tata, M. S., & Giaschi, D. E. (2004). Warning: Attending to a mask may be hazardous to your perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 262–268. Tata, M. S., & Giaschi, D. E. (2004). Warning: Attending to a mask may be hazardous to your perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 262–268.
go back to reference Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.CrossRefPubMed Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Treisman, A., & Gormican, S. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review, 95, 15–48.CrossRefPubMed Treisman, A., & Gormican, S. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review, 95, 15–48.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Woodman, G. F., & Luck, S. J. (2003). Dissociations among attention, perception, and awareness during object-substitution masking. Psychological Science, 14, 605–611.CrossRefPubMed Woodman, G. F., & Luck, S. J. (2003). Dissociations among attention, perception, and awareness during object-substitution masking. Psychological Science, 14, 605–611.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Endogenous cueing attenuates object substitution masking
Auteurs
Filip Germeys
I. Pomianowska
P. De Graef
P. Zaenen
K. Verfaillie
Publicatiedatum
01-07-2010
Uitgeverij
Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2010
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0263-x

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2010

Psychological Research 4/2010 Naar de uitgave