2018
DOI: 10.3390/vision2040039
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of Exogenous and Endogenous Attention on Metacontrast Masking

Abstract: To efficiently use its finite resources, the visual system selects for further processing only a subset of the rich sensory information. Visual masking and spatial attention control the information transfer from visual sensory-memory to visual short-term memory. There is still a debate whether these two processes operate independently or interact, with empirical evidence supporting both arguments. However, recent studies pointed out that earlier studies showing significant interactions between common-onset mas… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 90 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It also differs from all other conditions by the number of sequentially presented visual transients: With an SOA of zero, there are two visual transients less, as the disks (target and distractors) and rings (masks) start and end at the same time. We expected a u-shaped distribution of the accuracy rates as a function of the different SOA steps (e.g., Alpern, 1953 ; Enns and Di Lollo, 2000 ; Tata, 2002 ; Boyer and Ro, 2007 ; Bacon et al, 2013 ; Agaoglu et al, 2018 ). We presented 24 stimuli, whereof only four (in the inner corners of the virtual square) were potential targets (highlighted by lines pointing toward these positions; Figure 1 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…It also differs from all other conditions by the number of sequentially presented visual transients: With an SOA of zero, there are two visual transients less, as the disks (target and distractors) and rings (masks) start and end at the same time. We expected a u-shaped distribution of the accuracy rates as a function of the different SOA steps (e.g., Alpern, 1953 ; Enns and Di Lollo, 2000 ; Tata, 2002 ; Boyer and Ro, 2007 ; Bacon et al, 2013 ; Agaoglu et al, 2018 ). We presented 24 stimuli, whereof only four (in the inner corners of the virtual square) were potential targets (highlighted by lines pointing toward these positions; Figure 1 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…We manipulated three within-participant variables: SOA (five steps: 0 ms/85 ms/153 ms/221 ms/289 ms), Singleton Status (target singleton/distractor singleton/no singleton), and Mask Fit (tight fit/loose fit). For the variable SOA, we expected a U-shaped distribution of the accuracy rates depending on the different time intervals between disks and masks (e.g., Agaoglu et al, 2018;Alpern, 1953;Bacon et al, 2013;Baier et al, 2020;Boyer & Ro, 2007;Tata, 2002). To vary the singleton status, one of the four disks in the corners of the inner square shape (either the target or one of the other three stimuli at potential target positions) had a different color than the other 23 disks.…”
Section: Design and Hypothesesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Francis, 2000). This results in a U-shaped function of discrimination accuracies depending on the SOA (e.g., Agaoglu et al, 2016, 2018; Alpern, 1953; Bacon et al, 2013; Baier et al, 2020; Enns & Di Lollo, 2000; Francis, 2000; Tata, 2002).…”
Section: Experiments 1 (Metacontrast Masking)mentioning
confidence: 99%