Do noise masks terminate target processing?

Much recent research in visual information processing has employed a methodology resting on the assumption that a noise mask following presentation of a target stimulus terminates processing of that target. In the absence of appropriate controls, such a methodology is viable only insofar as an erasure theory of masking is valid. However, the phenomena from which the erasure position has derived its strongest support have been subject to alternative theoretical explanations, the most general of which is that of temporal integration. The experiment reported here tested these alternatives. Twelve subjects served in a tachistoscopic study designed to determine whether the same noise field of dots could either erase a degraded target digit or facilitate target identification through temporal integration, under both forward and backward masking paradigms. This was found to be the case, and the results were interpreted as consistent with an integration theory of masking and as incompatible with an erasure conception. The results suggested that efforts to control target processing time through display of a visual noise pattern subsequent to target presentation are methodologically inadequate when devoid of some basic control operations.

[1]  Alan M. Wing,et al.  Multidimensional encoding of visual form , 1972 .

[2]  E Scheerer,et al.  Integration, interruption and processing rate in visual backward masking , 1973, Psychologische Forschung.

[3]  G. M. Reicher.  Perceptual recognition as a function of meaninfulness of stimulus material. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  J. Rohrbaugh,et al.  Reaction time measurement of temporal integration and organization of form , 1975 .

[5]  D. D. Wheeler.  Processes in word recognition , 1970 .

[6]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Visual factors in word perception , 1973 .

[7]  D Kahneman,et al.  Temporal summation in an acuity task at different energy levels. A study of the determinants of summation. , 1964, Vision research.

[8]  R N Haber,et al.  Note on how to choose a visual noise mask. , 1970, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  H. Kinosita.  The Time-Intensity Relation in the Cathodal Galvanic Effect of Paramecium , 1936 .

[10]  Irwin Pollack,et al.  Interaction effects in successive visual displays: An extension of the Eriksen-Collins paradigm , 1973 .

[11]  C W Eriksen,et al.  Some temporal characteristics of visual pattern perception. , 1967, Journal of experimental psychology.

[12]  C W Eriksen,et al.  Sensory traces versus the psychological moment in the temporal organization of form. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[13]  T. Spencer,et al.  Evidence for an interruption theory of backward masking. , 1970, Journal of experimental psychology.

[14]  E. Scheerer,et al.  Two Visual Stores and Two Processing Operations in Tachistoscopic Partial Report , 1976, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[15]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Human Information Processing. , 1971 .

[16]  Steven W. Keele,et al.  Attention and human performance , 1973 .

[17]  D. Kahneman,et al.  THE TIME-INTENSITY RELATION IN VISUAL PERCEPTION AS A FUNCTION OF OBSERVER'S TASK. , 1964, Journal of experimental psychology.

[18]  P. H. Lindsay.  Human Information Processing , 1977 .

[19]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Visual masking in multielement displays. , 1970, Journal of experimental psychology.

[20]  Michael I. Posner,et al.  Cognition: An Introduction , 1973 .

[21]  J H Hogben,et al.  Perceptual integration and perceptual segregation of brief visual stimuli. , 1974, Vision research.

[22]  C. Eriksen,et al.  FROM RECOGNITION AT BRIEF DURATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF ADAPTING FIELD AND INTERVAL BETWEEN STIMULATIONS. , 1963, Journal of experimental psychology.

[23]  D Kahneman,et al.  Exposure Duration and Effective Figure-Ground Contrast , 1965, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[24]  M Coltheart,et al.  Evidence for an Integration Theory of Visual Masking , 1972, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[25]  H. P. Bechtoldt,et al.  Visual recognition as a function of stimulus offset asynchrony and duration , 1974 .

[26]  Emanuel Averbach,et al.  The span of apprehension as a function of exposure duration , 1963 .

[27]  E. Averbach,et al.  Short-term memory in vision , 1961 .

[28]  M. L. Kietzman,et al.  Visual temporal integration for threshold, signal detectability, and reaction time measures , 1973 .

[29]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Selective encoding from multielement visual displays , 1973 .

[30]  G. Sperling.  A Model for Visual Memory Tasks1 , 1963, Human factors.

[31]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Critical duration for the resolution of form: centrally or peripherally determined? , 1967, Journal of experimental psychology.

[32]  H R BLACKWELL,et al.  Neural theories of simple visual discriminations. , 1963, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[33]  M. Turvey.  On peripheral and central processes in vision: inferences from an information-processing analysis of masking with patterned stimuli. , 1973, Psychological review.

[34]  E. Warrington,et al.  The Effect of an After-coming Random Pattern on the Perception of Brief Visual Stimuli , 1962 .

[35]  M. Lichtenstein,et al.  Minimum detectable dark interval between trains of perceptually fused flashes. , 1960, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[36]  E DAVY,et al.  The intensity-time relation for multiple flashes of light in the peripheral retina. , 1952, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[37]  Ralph Norman Haber,et al.  Clarity and recognition of masked and degraded stimuli , 1968 .

[38]  Charles W. Eriksen,et al.  Temporal luminance summation effects in backward and forward masking , 1966 .

[39]  J. Rohrbaugh,et al.  Masking phenomena and time-intensity reciprocity for form. , 1968, Journal of Experimental Psychology.