Miscellanea: A Random Pattern Screen

Laner, Stephen; Morris, P G; Oldfield, R. C.

doi:10.1080/17470215708416227

Cited by 10 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A mask of this sort had been used in the Kinsbourne andWarrington experiments (1962a, 1962b). Described by Kinsbourne and Warrington as a noninformational stimulus, the mask reproduced in Figure 2 is a section of the random pattern (visual noise) described by Laner, Morris, and Oldfield (1957)-type 80 units per square centimeter. In the present experiments, the size of the visual field subtended by random noise was 3.5 degrees vertical by 6.5 degrees horizontal, (c) The term "pattern mask" was reserved for masks other than random noise.…”

Section: General Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On peripheral and central processes in vision: Inferences from an information-processing analysis of masking with patterned stimuli.

1973

Psychological Review

879

555

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The masking of briefly exposed letter forms by a preceding or succeeding stimulus may originate in either peripheral or central visual mechanisms. The question of how masking varies with origin was examined in a series of experiments which made use of stimuli that masked the target forms only monoptically (or binocularly), or both monoptically and dichoptically. Peripheral forward and backward masking were described by a simple relation between target stimulus energy and the minimal interval between target offset and mask onset permitting evasion of masking: the minimal interval multiplied by the target energy equals a constant. Peripheral forward masking, however, was more sensitive to mask intensity than was peripheral backward masking. On the other hand, central masking, which was primarily backward, was relatively unaffected by stimulus energy and was determined by the interval elapsing between the onsets of the two stimuli. The multiplicative rule and the onset-onset rule characterized, respectively, peripheral and central visual processes. The peripheral processes were viewed as a set of parallel systems or nets signaling crude features of the stimulus and the central processes as a series of decisions conducted, in part, on these features and resulting in stimulus recognition. It was hypothesized that the peripheral and central processes were related in a concurrent and contingent fashion: apparently, the two occur in parallel, with the central decisions contingent on the output of the peripheral systems which signal different features at different rates.Perceptual interference results when two stimuli are delivered to an observer in rapid succession. The term "forward masking"

show abstract

Section: General Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%