Abstract
The changing picture of object substitution masking: reply to Di Lollo (2014).
Highlights
In his recent comment, Di Lollo (2014) criticizes my proposal (Põder, 2013) that the attentional gating model (Reeves and Sperling, 1986; Sperling and Weichselgartner, 1995) might be the most simple and reasonable explanation for the results of object substitution masking (OSM) experiments
I analyzed the computational model (CMOS) proposed by Di Lollo et al (2000) and found it to be identical with the attentional gating model, which has no direct relationship with any kind of “reentrant processing.”
Di Lollo (2014) seems to have a rather subjective view of my study. He criticizes something named Põder’s feed-forward account of OSM, which is supposedly based on two assumptions: reduction of signal to noise ratio (SNR) as a result of integrated noise from the masker, and delayed deployment of attention
Summary
In his recent comment, Di Lollo (2014) criticizes my proposal (Põder, 2013) that the attentional gating model (Reeves and Sperling, 1986; Sperling and Weichselgartner, 1995) might be the most simple and reasonable explanation for the results of object substitution masking (OSM) experiments. The goal of my study (Põder, 2013) was to understand the mechanisms behind the results of a typical OSM experiment with varied duration of masker and setsize. He criticizes something named Põder’s feed-forward account (or model) of OSM, which is supposedly based on two assumptions: reduction of signal to noise ratio (SNR) as a result of integrated noise from the masker, and delayed deployment of attention.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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
