Target recovery in visual backward masking: no clear explanation in sight.

Theories of visual backward masking have generally ignored demonstrations of the perceptual recovery of a masked target when the masking stimulus (M1) is followed by a second masking stimulus (M2). This failure to address recovery may reflect a belief that recovery effects are relatively small and inconsistent. The present article reports a series of experiments, using single-letter targets, a patterned M1 and a light-flash M2, which indicate that recovery can be a robust and substantial phenomenon. It is observable under a variety of conditions, and the magnitude of recovery matches the masking effect itself. A two-choice discrimination task was employed to test an explanation for recovery that attributes the effect to inhibition from the transient response to the light flash on the sustained response to the patterned mask. That explanation calls for the shape of the function relating the discriminability of the patterned mask to the onset asynchrony of M1 and M2 to be U-shaped in form. The data, however, reveal a monotonic masking function, suggesting that only sustained, intrachannel interactions are involved in the recovery of the target percept. Two conflicting explanations for recovery are discussed, one based upon inhibition of M1 responses, the other upon enhancement of target features. Thus, while recovery is demonstrated to be very real, its explanation remains elusive.

[1]  W N Dember,et al.  Recovery of Masked Visual Targets by Inhibition of the Masking Stimulus , 1967, Science.

[2]  William N. Dember,et al.  Backward masking of visual targets with internal contours: A replication , 1971 .

[3]  A Pantle,et al.  Flicker adaptation. I. Effect on visual sensitivity to temporal fluctuations of light intensity. , 1971, Vision research.

[4]  William N. Dember,et al.  Backward masking of visual targets with internal contours , 1970 .

[5]  J. Robson,et al.  Application of fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings , 1968, The Journal of physiology.

[6]  Masking effectiveness and number of segments in the masking ring , 1974 .

[7]  W. N. Dember,et al.  Substantial recovery of a masked visual target and its theoretical interpretation , 1978 .

[8]  N. Weisstein,et al.  A comparison and elaboration of two models of metacontrast. , 1975, Psychological review.

[9]  B G Breitmeyer,et al.  Metacontrast investigations of sustained-transient channel inhibitory interactions. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  D. Purcell,et al.  Recovery and nonmonotone masking effects , 1982, Vision Research.

[11]  D N Robinson,et al.  Disinhibition of Visually Masked Stimuli , 1966, Science.

[12]  P. A. Kolers Intensity and contour effects in visual masking , 1962 .

[13]  D. Tolhurst,et al.  Psychophysical evidence for sustained and transient detectors in human vision , 1973, The Journal of physiology.

[14]  B G Breitmeyer,et al.  Implications of sustained and transient channels for theories of visual pattern masking, saccadic suppression, and information processing. , 1976, Psychological review.

[15]  A. Pantle,et al.  Motion aftereffect as a function of the contrast of sinusoidal gratings , 1976, Vision Research.

[16]  A. Kristofferson,et al.  Complete recovery of a masked visual target , 1979 .

[17]  N. Graham,et al.  Detection of grating patterns containing two spatial frequencies: a comparison of single-channel and multiple-channels models. , 1971, Vision research.

[18]  W Singer,et al.  Inhibitory interaction between X and Y units in the cat lateral geniculate nucleus. , 1973, Brain research.

[19]  W. N. Dember,et al.  The relation of phenomenal brightness reversal and re-reversal to backward masking and recovery , 1968 .

[20]  J. H. Werner,et al.  The intervals at which homogeneous flashes recover masked targets , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.