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 masking and attention suffered from ceiling and/or floor effects. Our review of previous studies reporting metacontrast-attention interactions revealed similar artifacts. Therefore, we investigated metacontrast-attention interactions by using an experimental paradigm, in which ceiling/floor effects were avoided. We also examined whether metacontrast masking is differently influenced by endogenous and exogenous attention. We analyzed mean absolute-magnitude of response-errors and their statistical distribution. When targets are masked, our results support the hypothesis that manipulations of the levels of metacontrast and of endogenous/exogenous attention have largely independent effects. Moreover, statistical modeling of the distribution of response-errors suggests weak interactions modulating the probability of “guessing” behavior for some observers in both types of attention. Nevertheless, our data suggest that any joint effect of attention and metacontrast can be adequately explained by their independent and additive contributions.

Highlights

  • Visual masking is defined as the reduction in visibility of a stimulus by another stimulus when they are presented in spatiotemporal vicinity of each other [1,2]

  • We found that masking functions (i.e., performance as a function of target-mask stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA)) underwent uniform shifts of performance as set-size changed, suggesting that attention and metacontrast masking operate independently, an observation which was supported by statistical analysis [54,55]

  • We did not control for ceiling and floor effects in the baseline conditions, we found a significant improvement in transformed performance with increasing cue-target onset asynchronies (CTOA) in the endogenous attention condition

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Visual masking is defined as the reduction in visibility of a (target) stimulus by another (mask) stimulus when they are presented in spatiotemporal vicinity of each other [1,2]. The term masking function refers to a plot of target visibility as a function of Stimulus Onset Asynchrony (SOA). Visual masking plays a crucial role in information processing. It can suppress the contents of sensory memory, and thereby (i) eliminate motion blur and establish the clarity of vision for moving objects [3,4,5,6], and (ii) control the information transfer from sensory memory to visual short-term memory (VSTM) [7,8]

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call