Abstract
The object updating hypothesis of object substitution masking proposes that the phenomenon arises when the visual system fails to individuate target and mask at the level of object token representations. This hypothesis is tested in two experiments using modifications of the dot mask paradigm developed by Lleras and Moore (2003). Target—mask individuation is manipulated by the presentation of additional display items that influence the linking apparent motion seen between a target and a spatially separated mask (Experiment 1), and by the use of placeholders that maintain the target object’s presence during mask presentation (Experiment 2). Results in both cases are consistent with the updating hypothesis in showing significantly reduced masking when the conditions promoted target—mask individuation. However, in both experiments, some masking was still present under conditions of individuation, an effect we attribute to attentional capture by the mask.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
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
Enns, J. T., Lleras, A., & Moore, C. M. (2009). Object updating: A force for perceptual continuity and scene stability in human vision. In R. Nijhawan (Ed.), Problems of space and time in perception and action (pp. 503–520). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forster, S., & Lavie, N. (2008). Attentional capture by entirely irrelevant distractors. Visual Cognition, 16, 200–214. doi:10.1080/ 13506280701465049
Kanwisher, N., & Driver, J. (1992). Objects, attributes, and visual attention: Which, what, and where. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 26–31.
Kolers, P. A. (1968). Some psychological aspects of pattern recognition. In P. A. Kolers & M. Eden (Eds.), Recognizing patterns. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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 & Performance, 29, 106–120. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.1.106
Moore, C. M., & Lleras, A. (2005). On the role of object representations in substitution masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 1171–1180. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.6.1171
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 & Performance, 28, 682–694. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.28.3.682
Sekuler, R. W. (1965). Spatial and temporal determinants of visual backwards masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 401–406. doi:10.1037/h0022202
Tata, M. S., & Giaschi, D. E. (2004). Warning: Attending to a mask may be hazardous to your perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 262–268.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pilling, M., Gellatly, A. Object substitution masking and the object updating hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17, 737–742 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.737
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.737