Warning: Attending to a mask may be hazardous to your perception

Tata, Matthew S.; Giaschi, Deborah

doi:10.3758/bf03196568

Cited by 36 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previewing the mask pattern attenuated OSM (e.g., Neill, Hutchison & Graves, 2002), and the duration, per se, of mask preview was in fact not critical in influencing preview effectiveness (Tata & Giaschi, 2004;Neill, Hutchison & Graves, 2002). Masking was reduced so long as the masks were briefly (133 ms) previewed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first and second were to replicate the basic findings that previewing the masks attenuates OSM, and that duration, per se, of mask preview does not influence its effectiveness to attenuate OSM (Tata & Giaschi, 2004;Neill, Hutchison & Graves, 2002). The third was to influence the nature of representation in visual short term memory with ISI.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Neill, Hutchison and Graves (2002) argued that OSM involves relatively high-level attentional mechanisms. More recently, Tata and Giaschi (2004) proposed that OSM occurs when attention is selectively deployed to the masking object. The visual system fundamentally assigns priority tags to objects in a scene (Yantis & Jonides, 1984), and attention is selectively deployed to high-priority objects (new items in the display) before low-priority objects (older items) (Yantis & Johnson, 1990).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Object substitution masking: When does mask preview work?

Lim¹,

Chua²

2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When a target is surrounded by a four-dot mask pattern that persists after the target disappears, target identification is worse than when the mask terminates with the target. This masking effect has been attributed to Object Substitution Masking (OSM). Previewing the four-dot mask attenuated OSM. This study investigated specific situations in which mask preview was (or was not) effective in attenuating masking. In Experiment 1, the interstimulus interval (ISI) between previewed mask offset and target presentation was manipulated. The basic preview effect was replicated; neither ISI nor preview duration influenced target discrimination performance. In Experiment 2, mask configurations were manipulated. When the configuration of the mask at preview matched the configuration at target presentation, the preview effect was replicated. New evidence of ineffective mask preview was found: when the two configurations did not match, performance declined. Yet, when the ISI between previewed mask offset and target presentation was removed, such that the mask underwent apparent motion, preview was effective despite the configuration mismatch. The object-token interpretation provides an excellent account to this data. This study enabled a new understanding of when preview exactly attenuates OSM.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Object substitution masking: When does mask preview work?

Lim¹,

Chua²

2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It should be noted, however, that recovery does not universally occur. In one case in which an outline square mask was used and the task for participants was to detect the presence of an unbroken ring target among broken ring distractors, statistically significant recovery was not obtained (Tata & Giaschi, 2004). But there are considerable individual differences in the temporal dynamics of the OSM recovery function (Goodhew et al, 2012), and possibly averaging across participants in the Tata and Giaschi study diluted the recovery effect.…”

Section: Theories Of Osmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Masking is attenuated or eliminated when attention is precued to the location of the target in the array Neill, Hutchison, & Graves, 2002). Similarly, attention to the mask plays a role in producing masking, since deliberate attention to the mask exacerbates OSM (Tata & Giaschi, 2004). However, like the distribution of attention during target exposure, it is not necessary in order to produce masking (Neill et al, 2002).…”

Section: Visual Maskingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Substituting objects from consciousness: A review of object substitution masking

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Object substitution masking (OSM) occurs when a sparse (e.g., four-dot), temporally trailing mask obscures the visibility of a briefly presented target. Here, we review theories of OSM: those that propose that OSM reflects the interplay between feedforward and feedback/reentrant neural processes, those that predict that feedforward processing alone gives rise to the phenomenon, and theories that focus on cognitive explanations, such as object updating. We discuss how each of these theories accommodates key findings from the OSM literature. In addition, we examine the relationship between OSM and other visual-cognitive phenomena, including object correspondence through occlusion, change blindness, metacontrast masking, backward masking, and visual short-term memory. Finally, we examine the level of processing at which OSM impairs target perception. Collectively, OSM appears to reflect the conditions under which the brain confuses two visual events for one when they are encoded with low spatiotemporal resolution, due to processing resources being otherwise occupied.Keywords Object substitution masking . Attention . Reentrant processing . Consciousness When observing a visual scene, at any point in time, we are conscious of only a small fraction of the available information. Given this limitation, it is important to understand the mechanisms that determine what stimuli we become conscious of, when we become conscious of them, and the nature of processing that occurs in the absence of explicit awareness. There exists a long and rich history in experimental psychology of using visual masking to explore such issues. Visual masking refers to conditions where the visibility of one to-be-reported visual stimulus (the target) is obscured by the presentation of another stimulus (the mask) that appears in close spatiotemporal proximity and does not require report. Object substitution masking (OSM) is a recent discovery in the field of visual masking and is an ideal tool for exploring questions about visual awareness because it selectively impairs the extent to which an individual becomes conscious of a visual stimulus without the extent of image-level degradation that other forms of visual masking induce. This review, therefore, focuses on the determinants and consequences of visual awareness in OSM.Here, we integrate a diverse range of literature to discern what OSM can tell us about perceptual consciousness and visual cognition in general. Specifically, we discuss the role of feedforward versus feedback processing in giving rise to OSM, whether the phenomenon is better characterized as reflecting object updating or object substitution, the similarities and differences between OSM and other forms of masking, and OSM's relationship to other visual-cognitive phenomena. In addition, we review evidence regarding the role of attention in masking. Our aim is to address controversies in the OSM literature in depth and offer insights into how some of them may already be resolved and how the field might go about resolving ...

show abstract

Different effects of the two types of spatial pre-cueing: what precisely is “attention” in Di Lollo’s and Enns’ substitution masking theory?

Luiga

Bachmann

2006

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enns and Di Lollo [Psychological Science, 8 (2), 135-139, 1997] have introduced the object substitution theory of visual masking. Object substitution masking occurs when focusing attention on the target is delayed. However, Posner (Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3-25, 1980) has already shown that attention can be directed to a target at least in two ways: intentionally (endogenously) and automatically (exogenously). We conducted two experiments to explore the effects of endogenous and exogenous cues on substitution masking. The results showed that when attention was shifted to the target location automatically (using a local peripheral pre-cue), masking was attenuated. A decrease in target identification dependent on a delay of mask offset, typical to substitution masking, was not observed. However, strong substitution masking occurred when the target location was not pre-cued or when attention was directed to the target location intentionally (using a symbolic pre-cue displayed centrally). The hypothesis of two different mechanisms of attentional control in substitution masking was confirmed.

show abstract

Warning: Attending to a mask may be hazardous to your perception

Cited by 36 publications

References 23 publications

Object substitution masking: When does mask preview work?

Object substitution masking: When does mask preview work?

Substituting objects from consciousness: A review of object substitution masking

Different effects of the two types of spatial pre-cueing: what precisely is “attention” in Di Lollo’s and Enns’ substitution masking theory?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About