How the Strength of a Strong Object Mask Varies in Space and Time When it is Used as an Uninformative Singleton in Visual Search for Target Location

Talis Bachmann, Endel Põder, Carolina Murd
DOI: 10.4236/psych.2011.28126                

Abstract

Strong visual masking originates from sensory perceptual interactions between target and mask and also from attentional competition between target and mask even though mask does not correspond to attentional control settings. The relative contributions of these different masking mechanisms are difficult to estimate. One strategy to begin approach this problem is to use the same stimulus as a mask and as a non-informative singleton in a selective attention task. The purpose of the present study was to find the spatial and temporal intervals where a strong object mask interferes with target-object search when used as a non-informative singleton. In visual search for target location, we found that a visual object that has a strong forward and backward masking power on target-object correct perception when spatially superimposed on target can impair target perception from a spatially separated location only when presented up to 100 ms after the target and only from a spatially close location. These results are explained by a processing account where the initial analysis of stimuli features allows to determine the best candidate location for the target, but as soon as this location is established, a nearby later appearing object may intrude it, replacing the target in explicit perception. The higher-level mechanisms based interpretation is strengthened by the finding that any local masking effects of the same adjacent singleton were absent in the task of single-target identification.

Keywords

Masking, Visual Search, Target Localization, Attentional Capture, Consciousness

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Ansorge, U., & Horstmann, G. (2007). Preemptive control of attentional capture by colour: Evidence from trial-by-trial analyses and orderings of onsets of capture effects in reaction time distributions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 952-975.
[2]	Bachmann, T. (1994). Psychophysiology of visual masking. The fine structure of conscious experience. Commack, New York: Nova Science Publishers.
[3]	Bachmann, T., & Allik, J. (1976). Integration and interruption in the masking of form by form. Perception, 5, 79-97.
[4]	Bachmann, T., & Murd, C. (2010). Covert spatial attention in search for the location of a color-afterimage patch speeds up its decay from awareness: Introducing a method useful for the study of neural correlates of visual awareness. Vision Research, 50, 1048-1053.
[5]	Bachmann, T., M?ger, K., Sarv, M., Kahusk, N., & Turner, J. (1999). Time-course of spatial-attentional focusing in the case of high processing demand on the peripheral precue. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 11, 167-198.
[6]	Becker, S.I. (2007). Irrelevant singletons in pop-out search: attentional capture or filtering costs? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 764-787.
[7]	Boehler, C.N., Tsotsos, J.K., Schoenfeld, M.A., Heinze, H.-J., & Hopf, J.-M. (2009). The center-surround profile of the focus of attention arises from recurrent processing in visual cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 982-991.
[8]	Breitmeyer, B.G. (2010). Blindspots. The many ways we cannot see. Oxford, New York: Oxford Universitgy Press.
[9]	Chastain, G. (1990). Representation of letters when mislocation errors occur. Journal of General Psychology, 117(2), 143-151.
[10]	Cheal, M. L., & Lyon, D. R. (1991). Central and peripheral precuing of forced-choice discrimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 859-880.
[11]	Davoli, C.D., Suszko, J.W., & Abrams, R.A. (2007). New objects can capture attention without a unique luminance transient. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 338-343.
[12]	Di Lollo, V., Enns, J.T., & Rensink, R.A. (2000). Competition for consciousness among visual events: the psychophysics of re-entrant visual processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 481-507.
[13]	Enns, J. T. (2004). Object substitution and its relation to other forms of visual masking. Vision Research, 44, 1321-1331.
[14]	Folk, C.L., Remington, R.W., & Johnston, J.C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1030-1044.
[15]	Forster, S., & Lavie, N. (2008). Attentional capture by entirely irrelevant distractors. Visual Cognition, 16 , 200-214.
[16]	Gibson, B.S., Folk, C., Theeuwes, J., & Kingstone, A. (Eds.) (2008). Attentional capture. Hove: Psychology Press.
[17]	Grabbe, Y., & Pratt, J. (2004). Competing top-down processes in visual selection: Evidence that selection by location is stronger than selection by color. Journal of General Psychology, 131(2), 137-149.
[18]	Hoffman, J. E. (1979). A two-stage model of visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 319-327.
[19]	Hommuk, K., & Bachmann, T. (2009). Temporal limitations in the effective binding of attended target attributes in the mutual masking of visual objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 648-660.
[20]	Jingling, L., & Yeh, S.-L. (2007). New objects do not capture attention without a top-down setting: evidence from an inattentional blindness task. Visual Cognition, 15, 661-684.
[21]	Kahneman, D., & Treisman, A. (1984). Changing views of attention and automaticity. In R. Parasuraman & D.R. Davis (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 29-61). Orlando: Academic Press.
[22]	Kawahara, J., & Miyatani, M. (2001). The effect of informative and uninformative cueing of attention on feature integration. Journal of General Psychology, 128(1), 51-75.
[23]	Kim, M.S., & Cave, K.R. (1999). Grouping effects on spatial attention in visual search. Journal of General Psychology, 126(4), 326-352.
[24]	Koch, C., & Tsuchiya, N. (2007). Attention and consciousness: two distinct brain processes. Trends Cognitive Sciences, 11, 16-22.
[25]	Lichtenstein-Vidne, L., Henik, A., & Safadi, Z. (2007). Task-relevance modulates the effects of peripheral distractors. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1216-1226.
[26]	Michaels, C.F., & Turvey, M.T. (1979). Central sources of visual masking: Indexing structures supporting seeing at a single, brief glance. Psychological Research, 41, 1-61.
[27]	Mulckhuyse, M., & Theeuwes, J. (2010). Unconscious attentional orienting to exogenous cues: A review of the literature. Acta Psychologica, 134, 299-309.
[28]	Munneke, J., Van der Stigchel, & Theeuwes, J. (2008). Cueing the location of a distractor: An inhibitory mechanism of spatial attention? Acta Psychologica, 129, 101-107.
[29]	Müller, H.J., & Krummenacher, J. (Eds.) (2006). Visual search and attention. Hove: Psychology Press.
[30]	Neo, G., & Chua, F.K. (2006). Capturing focused attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 1286-1296.
[31]	Smith, M.A., Kelly, R.C., & Lee, T.S. (2007). Dynamics of response to perceptual pop-out stimuli in macaque V1. Journal of Neurophysiology, 98, 3436-3449.
[32]	Smith, P. L. (2000). Attention and luminance detection: Effects of cues, masks, and pedestals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1401-1420.
[33]	Smith, P.L., & Wolfgang, B.J. (2004). The attentional dynamics of masked detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 119-136.
[34]	Steelman-Allen, K., McCarley, J.S., & Mounts, J.R.W. (2009). Localized attentional interference reflects competition for reentrant processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 110-115.
[35]	Turatto, M., & Galfano, G. (2000). Color, form and luminance capture attention in visual search. Vision Research, 40, 1639-1643.
[36]	Van den Bussche, E., Hughes, G., Van Humbeeck, N., & Reynvoet, B. (2010). The relation between consciousness and attention: An empirical study using the priming paradigm. Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 86-97.
[37]	Vierck, E., & Miller, J. (2008). Precuing benefits for color and location in a visual search task. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 365-373.
[38]	Wolfe, J.M., Cave, K.R., & Franzel, S.L. (1989). Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 419-433.
[39]	Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1990). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: voluntary versus automatic allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 16, 121-134.
[40]	Yeh, S.-L., & Liao, H.-I. (2010). On the generality of the displaywide contingent orienting hypothesis: Can a visual onset capture attention without top-down control settings for displaywide onset? Acta Psychologica, 135, 159-167.