Lateral masking: Limitations of the feature interaction account

Recognition performance for a target letter embedded in a string of characters is worse than that for targets presented in isolation. This lateral masking (LM) effect is known to depend on target eccentricity and spacing between target and flankers (Bouma, 1970), indicating that LM arises in early visual processing due to interactions among visual features. The feature interaction account would predict that flankers consisting of similar features produce similar LM effects and that differences in LM produced by different types of flanker diminish with increasing target eccentricity and decreasing spacing. However, in a series of six experiments, this prediction was shown not to be true. Flankers that did not ac-cess a higher level code (e.g., pseudoletters or rotated letters) produced more LM than standard letter flankers. Moreover, effects of different flanker types were most pronounced for medium target eccentricities and medium spacings for which recognition performance scores ranged between 40% and 60%.

[1]  Howard E. Egeth,et al.  Conceptual and perceptual components of interletter inhibition. , 1981 .

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

[3]  G Wolford,et al.  Lateral masking as a function of spacing , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  G Wolford,et al.  Perturbation model for letter identification. , 1975, Psychological review.

[5]  A. H. C. van der Heijden,et al.  Selective Attention in Vision , 1991 .

[6]  W. K. Estes.  Similarity-related channel interactions in visual processing. , 1982 .

[7]  L. E. Krueger.  The category effect in visual search depends on physical rather than conceptual differences , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  James T. Townsend,et al.  Lateral masking for letters with unlimited viewing time , 1971 .

[9]  R. Shepard,et al.  CHRONOMETRIC STUDIES OF THE ROTATION OF MENTAL IMAGES , 1973 .

[10]  D A Allport,et al.  Perceptual integration of identity, location and colour , 1986, Psychological research.

[11]  W H Teichner,et al.  Laws of visual choice reaction time. , 1974, Psychological review.

[12]  W. Chase,et al.  Visual information processing. , 1974 .

[13]  R. Engle,et al.  Voice change in the stimulus suffix effect: Are the effects structural or strategic? , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[14]  M Mason,et al.  Recognition time for letters and nonletters: effects of serial position, array size, and processing order. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  J. Duncan,et al.  Beyond the search surface: visual search and attentional engagement. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  H. BOUMA,et al.  Interaction Effects in Parafoveal Letter Recognition , 1970, Nature.

[17]  Ronald G. Shapiro,et al.  Effect of similarity of surround on target-letter processing. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  T. Sanocki.  Perception : Font-Specific , Schematic Tuning , 2011 .

[19]  L. E. Krueger,et al.  Effect of letter orientation and sequential redundancy on the speed of letter search , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[20]  W. Estes,et al.  Serial position functions for letter identification at brief and extended exposure durations , 1976 .

[21]  D. Heller,et al.  Interaktionseffekte im seitlichen Gesichtsfeld: Eine Erweiterung des Ansatzes von Bouma (1970). , 1995 .

[22]  Thomas Sanocki,et al.  Font Regularity Constraints on the Process of Letter Recognition , 1988 .

[23]  A. Jacobs,et al.  Perception of lowercase letters in peripheral vision: A discrimination matrix based on saccade latencies , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[24]  Jeff F. Miller.  The flanker compatibility effect as a function of visual angle, attentional focus, visual transients, and perceptual load: A search for boundary conditions , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

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

[27]  Jack M. Loomis,et al.  Lateral masking in foveal and eccentric vision , 1978, Vision Research.

[28]  R W Schvaneveldt,et al.  An activation--verification model for letter and word recognition: the word-superiority effect. , 1982, Psychological review.

[29]  William K. Estes,et al.  Interactions of signal and background variables in visual processing , 1972 .

[30]  R. Jacobs.  Visual resolution and contour interaction in the fovea and periphery , 1979, Vision Research.

[31]  E. Reingold,et al.  Perceptual versus postperceptual mediation of visual context effects: Evidence from the letter-superiority effect , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[32]  D J Mewhort,et al.  Blank characters in tachistoscopic recognition: space has both a symbolic and a sensory role. , 1982, Canadian journal of psychology.

[33]  I. Rentschler,et al.  Contrast thresholds for identification of numeric characters in direct and eccentric view , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[34]  D. Massaro,et al.  The role of lateral masking and orthographic structure in letter and word recognition. , 1979, Acta psychologica.

[35]  W. Prinzmetal.  The word-superiority effect does not require a T-scope , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[36]  D W Massaro,et al.  Visual, orthographic, phonological, and lexical influences in reading. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.