Object substitution masking induced by illusory masks: evidence for higher object-level locus of interference.

A briefly presented target can be rendered invisible by a lingering sparse mask that does not even touch it. This form of visual backward masking, called object substitution masking, is thought to occur at the object level of processing. However, it remains unclear whether object-level interference alone produces substitution masking because previous studies manipulated only the presence or absence of a physical masking stimulus after the removal of the target, leaving the possibility of some image-level interference contributing to the total masking. To assess object-level interference in the present study, we used an illusory-contour figure as an object mask, adjacent to the possible target locations, which was created by rotating 4 previewed inducers shaped like Pac-Man to face inward to form a subjective square region. The illusory object persisting beyond the target offset reduced the visibility of the target only when presented in its immediate vicinity. This masking effect could not be attributed to the local directional changes, symmetry, or perceptual closure of the inducers near the target. These results provide strong evidence for a high-level locus of interference in object substitution masking.

[1]  John J. Foxe,et al.  Setting Boundaries: Brain Dynamics of Modal and Amodal Illusory Shape Completion in Humans , 2004, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[2]  Nava Rubin,et al.  Rapid detection of salient regions: evidence from apparent motion. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[3]  Keith A Hutchison,et al.  Masking by object substitution: dissociation of masking and cuing effects. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  J. R. Mounts.  Evidence for suppressive mechanisms in attentional selection: Feature singletons produce inhibitory surrounds , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[5]  J. Enns.  Object substitution and its relation to other forms of visual masking , 2004, Vision Research.

[6]  M Dojat,et al.  Moving illusory contours activate primary visual cortex: an fMRI study. , 2000, Cerebral cortex.

[7]  Paul Atchley,et al.  Aging and visual masking: sensory and attentional factors. , 2004, Psychology and aging.

[8]  A. Dale,et al.  The Representation of Illusory and Real Contours in Human Cortical Visual Areas Revealed by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[9]  G K Humphrey,et al.  Parallel discrimination of subjective contours defined by offset gratings , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[11]  M. Chun,et al.  Asymmetric object substitution masking. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  Matthew S. Tata,et al.  Warning: Attending to a mask may be hazardous to your perception , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[13]  J. R. Mounts,et al.  Attentional capture by abrupt onsets and feature singletons produces inhibitory surrounds , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  John J. Foxe,et al.  Kanizsa subjective figures capture visual spatial attention: evidence from electrophysiological and behavioral data , 2005, Neuropsychologia.

[15]  W. Singer,et al.  The constructive nature of vision: direct evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging studies of apparent motion and motion imagery , 1998, The European journal of neuroscience.

[16]  H. Barlow,et al.  The versatility and absolute efficiency of detecting mirror symmetry in random dot displays , 1979, Vision Research.

[17]  Tony Ro,et al.  Attention attenuates metacontrast masking , 2007, Cognition.

[18]  J. Enns,et al.  Object Updating and the Flash-Lag Effect , 2004, Psychological science.

[19]  Matthew S. Tata,et al.  Attend to it now or lose it forever: Selective attention, metacontrast masking, and object substitution , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[20]  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.

[21]  Michael Pilling,et al.  What is being masked in object substitution masking? , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  J. Theeuwes.  Exogenous and endogenous control of attention: The effect of visual onsets and offsets , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[23]  G. Kuhn,et al.  Onset of illusory figures attenuates change blindness , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[24]  S Yantis,et al.  Attentional capture by globally defined objects , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  N. Rubin,et al.  fMRI Activation in Response to Illusory Contours and Salient Regions in the Human Lateral Occipital Complex , 2003, Neuron.

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

[27]  James T. Enns,et al.  The path of least persistence: Object status mediates visual updating , 2007, Vision Research.

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

[29]  New objects can capture attention without a unique luminance transient , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[30]  M. Grünau.  The involvement of illusory contours in stroboscopic motion , 1979 .

[31]  A. Mack,et al.  Metacontrast Masking and Attention , 1999 .

[32]  V. S. Ramachandran,et al.  Visual attention modulates metacontrast masking , 1995, Nature.

[33]  John J. Foxe,et al.  The Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Illusory Contour Processing: Combined High-Density Electrical Mapping, Source Analysis, and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2002, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[34]  C. Moore,et al.  Using inattentional blindness as an operational definition of unattended: The case of surface completion , 2003 .

[35]  Y. Otsuka,et al.  The Effect of Support Ratio on Infants' Perception of Illusory Contours , 2004, Perception.

[36]  K. Yokosawa,et al.  Object-based attentional selection and awareness of objects , 2007 .

[37]  G. Woodman,et al.  Dissociations Among Attention, Perception, and Awareness During Object-Substitution Masking , 2003, Psychological science.

[38]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Competition for consciousness among visual events: the psychophysics of reentrant visual processes. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[39]  John K. Tsotsos,et al.  The selective tuning model of attention: psychophysical evidence for a suppressive annulus around an attended item , 2003, Vision Research.

[40]  Katherine M. Mathis,et al.  Gestalt grouping and common onset masking , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[41]  V S Ramachandran,et al.  Apparent Motion of Subjective Surfaces , 1985, Perception.

[42]  J R Pomerantz,et al.  Subjective contours can facilitate performance in a reaction-time task , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[43]  R. Gurnsey,et al.  There is No Evidence That Kanizsa-Type Subjective Contours Can Be Detected in Parallel , 1996, Perception.

[44]  P. Kellman,et al.  A theory of visual interpolation in object perception , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[45]  M. Brodeur,et al.  Alternative mode of presentation of Kanizsa figures sheds new light on the chronometry of the mechanisms underlying the perception of illusory figures , 2008, Neuropsychologia.

[46]  P. Kellman,et al.  A common mechanism for illusory and occluded object completion. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[47]  John K. Tsotsos,et al.  Direct neurophysiological evidence for spatial suppression surrounding the focus of attention in vision. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[48]  Jon Driver,et al.  Parallel detection of Kanizsa subjective figures in the human visual system , 1994, Nature.

[49]  O. Neumann,et al.  Visual attention and the mechanism of metacontrast , 2007, Psychological research.

[50]  Ruth Kimchi,et al.  Automatic, stimulus-driven attentional capture by objecthood , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[51]  S. Yantis,et al.  Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: voluntary versus automatic allocation. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[52]  Soichiro Nomura,et al.  Activation time course of responses to illusory contours and salient region: A high-density electrical mapping comparison , 2006, Brain Research.

[53]  T. Kahan,et al.  Looking at object-substitution masking in depth and motion: Toward a two-object theory of object substitution , 2006, Perception & psychophysics.

[54]  J. Enns,et al.  Object Substitution: A New Form of Masking in Unattended Visual Locations , 1997 .

[55]  Hidenao Fukuyama,et al.  Recovery from object substitution masking induced by transient suppression of visual motion processing: a repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation study. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[56]  B. Breitmeyer,et al.  Recent models and findings in visual backward masking: A comparison, review, and update , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[57]  M. Chun,et al.  The spatial gradient of visual masking by object substitution , 2001, Vision Research.

[58]  Glenn E. Meyer,et al.  Subjective contours and the Poggendorff illusion , 1979 .

[59]  Eric Halgren,et al.  Cortical activation to illusory shapes as measured with magnetoencephalography , 2003, NeuroImage.