Delayed offset detection on figures relative to backgrounds

A dynamic neural field model of temporal order judgments.

“…There were three types of Seg inputs to reflect the task conditions we examined: (1) figure and ground (when two regions abutted one another) with activation associated with the figure (i.e., activation at one location, -30°, and not at the other, 30°), (2) separated figure and ground with activation at both locations due to ambiguity in the display, and (3) no input at both locations when the figure and ground were presented as separated regions. Examples of these types of displays appear in Figure 2; we have used such displays in our previous research (e.g., Hecht & Vecera, 2011), and findings from those studies are simulated here.…”

“…We begin by describing how we embed the DNF model in the TOJ task, including the addition of a response field that generates neural decisions about the order of onsets and offsets. We then simulate data from Lester et al (2009) and Hecht and Vecera (2011). We conclude by discussing the implications of the DNF model for TOJs and how this model compares to other efforts to explain prior entry and temporal extension effects in the attention literature.…”

“…Temporal ordering of events is biased, or influenced, by perceptual organization—figure–ground organization—and by spatial attention. For example, within a region assigned figural status or at an attended location, onset events are processed earlier (Lester, Hecht, & Vecera, 2009; Shore, Spence, & Klein, 2001), and offset events are processed for longer durations (Hecht & Vecera, 2011; Rolke, Ulrich, & Bausenhart, 2006). Here, we present an extension of a dynamic field model of change detection (Johnson, Spencer, Luck, & Schöner, 2009; Johnson, Spencer, & Schöner, 2009) that accounts for both the onset and offset performance for figural and attended regions.…”

“…Image-based cues (e.g., Palmer, 1999, 2002; see also Pomerantz & Kubovy, 1986; Rock, 1975, 1995, and Rubin, 1915/1958; Vecera, Vogel, & Woodman, 2002), top–down processes (e.g., Baylis & Driver, 1995; Driver & Baylis, 1996; Julesz, 1984; Peterson, 1994, 1999; Peterson & Gibson, 1991, 1993, 1994; Peterson, Harvey, & Weidenbacher, 1991; Rock, 1975; Vecera, Flevaris, & Filapek, 2004; Vecera & O’Reilly, 1998, 2000), and early perceptual processes, such as spatial and temporal perception (e.g., Klymenko & Weisstein, 1986, 1989a, 1989b; Klymenko, Weisstein, Topolski, & Hsieh, 1989), influence figure–ground organization. However, recent research has also demonstrated that figure–ground organization impacts other perceptual processes, including shape discriminability (Lazareva, Castro, Vecera, & Wasserman, 2006; Wong & Weissten, 1982, 1983), choice reaction time (RT; Nelson & Palmer, 2007), perceived contrast (Self, Mookhoek, Tjalma, & Roelfsema, 2015), and temporal processing (Hecht & Vecera, 2011; Lester, Hecht, & Vecera, 2009). When making temporal order judgments (TOJs) regarding the onset of two targets, the target on the ground must appear before the target on the figure in order to perceive the events as occurring simultaneously, suggesting a perceptual processing advantage such that figures undergo perceptual processing prior to grounds—a prior entry effect (Lester et al, 2009).…”

“…Change detection consists of comparing the current state of the perceptual world relative to some prior encoded or remembered state to detect whether a change occurred. In the experiments that first noted prior entry and temporal extension as consequences of figure–ground organization (Hecht & Vecera, 2011; Lester et al, 2009), observers determined the temporal order in which 2 stimuli onset (or offset) within the display. To properly order these temporal events, the state of the visual scene had to be encoded at the start of the trial and compared with incoming perceptual information to detect a change in the onset or offset of information.…”