Updating a Cautionary Tale of Masked Priming: Reply to Klapp (2005).

The commentary by S. T. Klapp (2005) on our recent article (A. Lleras & J. T. Enns, 2004) proposes that the empirical finding of negative compatibility in masked priming be attributed to 2 distinct theoretical constructs: (a) perceptual priming through object updating, as described in our article, and (b) nonperceptual priming based on inhibited unconscious response tendencies. The authors argue that this 2nd construct is not supported by either the new data the authors report or the extant literature. Instead, the negative compatibility effect in masked priming is influenced by perceptual interactions among stimuli that appear in the same spatial location, and the authors believe it is this process that deserves further systematic study.

[1]  Alejandro Lleras,et al.  On the role of object representations in substitution masking. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  Stuart T Klapp,et al.  Two versions of the negative compatibility effect: comment on Lleras and Enns (2004). , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[3]  J. Enns,et al.  Negative compatibility or object updating? A cautionary tale of mask-dependent priming. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[4]  E. Schröger,et al.  Psychophysics beyond sensation : laws and invariants of human cognition , 2004 .

[5]  E. C. Leek,et al.  Inhibition of return for objects and locations in static displays , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.

[6]  C. Moore,et al.  When the target becomes the mask: using apparent motion to isolate the object-level component of object substitution masking. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  Jane E Raymond,et al.  New Objects, Not New Features, Trigger the Attentional Blink , 2003, Psychological science.

[8]  M. Eimer,et al.  Links between conscious awareness and response inhibition: Evidence from masked priming , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[9]  J. Duncan,et al.  Objects and Events in the Attentional Blink , 2002, Psychological science.

[10]  S. Suzuki.  Attention-dependent brief adaptation to contour orientation: a high-level aftereffect for convexity? , 2001, Vision Research.

[11]  J. Raymond.  Perceptual links and attentional blinks , 2001 .

[12]  K. Shapiro.  The limits of attention : temporal constraints in human information processing , 2001 .

[13]  S. Tipper,et al.  Attending, ignoring, and repetition: On the relation between negative priming and inhibition of return , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  J. Enns,et al.  What’s new in visual masking? , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[15]  M. Eimer,et al.  Effects of masked stimuli on motor activation: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  A shape-contrast effect for briefly presented stimuli. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  V. Lollo,et al.  Beyond the attentional blink: visual masking by object substitution. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  M. Potter,et al.  Visual and phonological codes in repetition blindness , 1992 .

[19]  N. Kanwisher.  Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation , 1987, Cognition.

[20]  M. Masson,et al.  Repetition blindness in rapid lists: activation and inhibition versus construction and attribution. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[21]  Thomas Schmidt,et al.  Invariant time-course of priming with and without awareness , 2004 .

[22]  S. T. Klapp,et al.  The negative compatibility effect: unconscious inhibition influences reaction time and response selection. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[23]  M. Potter,et al.  The time course of competition for attention: attention is initially labile. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  James T. Enns,et al.  Visual masking plays two roles in the attentional blink , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Focused attention distorts visual space: an attentional repulsion effect. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  K L Shapiro,et al.  Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: an attentional blink? . , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  D Bavelier,et al.  Visual and phonological codes in repetition blindness. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[28]  Bruno G. Breitmeyer,et al.  Visual masking : an integrative approach , 1984 .