A central bar repeatedly presented in alternation with two flanking bars can lead to the disappearance of the central bar. Recently it has been suggested that this masking effect could be explained by object-mediated updating: the information from the central bar is integrated into the representation of the flankers, leading not only to the disappearance of the central bar as a separate object, but also to the perception of the flankers in apparent motion between their real position and the position of the central bar. This account suggests that the visibility of the central bar should depend on the same factors as those that influence the construction and maintenance of object representations. Therefore separation between central bar and flankers should not influence visibility as long as the time interval between them is adequate to make an interpretation of the scene in terms of one object moving from one location to the other possible location. We found that if the time interval between the central bar and the flankers is neither too short nor too long, the central bar becomes invisible even at large separations. These findings are inconsistent with traditional accounts of the cycling lateral masking displays in terms of local inhibitory mechanisms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AttneaveFBlockG, 1973“Apparent movement in tridimensional space”Perception & Psychophysics13301–307
2.
BischofW FDi LolloV, 1995“Motion and metacontrast with simultaneous onset of stimuli”Journal of the Optical Society of America A121623–1636
BreitmeyerB GBattagliaFWeberC, 1976“U-shaped backward contour masking during stroboscopic motion”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance2167–173
5.
BreitmeyerB GGanzL, 1976“Implications of sustained and transient channels for theories of visual pattern masking, saccadic suppression, and information processing”Psychological Review831–36
6.
BreitmeyerB GHerzogM HÖğmenH, 2008“Motion, not masking, provides the medium for feature attribution”Psychological Science19823–829
7.
BreitmeyerB GHormanK, 1981“On the role of stroboscopic motion in metacontrast”Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society1729–32
8.
BreitmeyerB GLoveRWepmanB, 1974“Contour suppression during stroboscopic motion and metacontrast”Vision Research141451–1456
9.
BreitmeyerB GÖğmenH, 2006Visual Masking: Time Slices through Conscious and Unconscious Vision (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
10.
Di LolloVBischofW FDixonP, 1993“Stimulus-onset asynchrony is not necessary for motion perception or metacontrast masking”Psychological Science4260–263
11.
DidnerRSperlingG, 1980“Perceptual delay: a consequence of metacontrast and apparent motion”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance6235–243
12.
DuangudomVFrancisGHerzogM H, 2007“What is the strength of a mask in visual metacontrast masking?”Journal of Vision71–7
13.
EnnsJ T, 2002“Visual binding in the standing wave illusion”Psychonomic Bulletin & Review9489–496
14.
EnnsJ TDi LolloV, 1997“Object substitution: A new form of masking in unattended visual locations”Psychological Science8135–139
15.
EnnsJ TLlerasAMooreC M, 2009“Object updating: A force for perceptual continuity and scene stability in human vision”, in Problems of Space and Time in Perception and Action Ed. NijhawanR (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) pp 503–520
16.
FehrerE, 1966“Effect of stimulus similarity on retroactive masking”Journal of Experimental Psychology71612–615
17.
FehrerESmithE, 1962“Effects of luminance ratio on masking”Perceptual and Motor Skills14243–253
18.
FrancisG, 1997“Cortical dynamics of lateral inhibition: metacontrast masking”Psychological Review104572–594
19.
GrowneyRWeissteinNCoxS I, 1977“Metacontrast as a function of spatial separation with narrow line targets and masks”Vision Research171205–1210
20.
HeinEMooreC M, 2010“Unmasking the standing wave of invisibility: An account in terms of apparent motion and representational updating”Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics72398–408
21.
HerzogM HKochC, 2001“Seeing properties of an invisible object: Feature inheritance and shine-through”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA984271–4275
KahnemanD, 1967“Onset–onset law for one case of apparent motion and metacontrast”Perception & Psychophysics2577–584
24.
KolersP A, 1962“Intensity and contour effects in visual masking”Vision Research2211–294
25.
KorteA, 1915“Kinematoskopische Untersuchungen”Zeitschrift für Psychologie72194–296
26.
LlerasAMooreC 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 Performance29106–120
27.
MacknikS LLivingstoneM S, 1998“Neuronal correlates of visibility and invisibility in the primate visual system”Nature Neuroscience1144–149
28.
MacknikS LMartinez-CondeSHaglundM M, 2000“The role of spatiotemporal edges in visibility and visual masking”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA977556–7560
29.
MooreC MEnnsJ T, 2004“Object substitution and the flash-lag effect”Psychological Science15866–871
30.
MooreC MLlerasA, 2005“On the role of object representations in substitution masking”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance311171–1180
31.
MooreC MMordkoffJ TEnnsJ T, 2007“The path of least persistence: object status mediates visual updating”Vision Research471624–1630
32.
NeuhausW, 1930“Experimentelle Untersuchungen der Scheinbewegung”Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie75315–458
33.
PelliD G, 1997“The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies”Spatial Vision10437–442
34.
PillingMGellatlyA, 2009“Target visibility in the standing wave illusion: Is mask–target shape similarity important?”Perception385–16
