Different effects of the two types of spatial pre-cueing: what precisely is “attention” in Di Lollo’s and Enns’ substitution masking theory?

Enns and Di Lollo [Psychological Science, 8 (2), 135–139, 1997] have introduced the object substitution theory of visual masking. Object substitution masking occurs when focusing attention on the target is delayed. However, Posner (Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25, 1980) has already shown that attention can be directed to a target at least in two ways: intentionally (endogenously) and automatically (exogenously). We conducted two experiments to explore the effects of endogenous and exogenous cues on substitution masking. The results showed that when attention was shifted to the target location automatically (using a local peripheral pre-cue), masking was attenuated. A decrease in target identification dependent on a delay of mask offset, typical to substitution masking, was not observed. However, strong substitution masking occurred when the target location was not pre-cued or when attention was directed to the target location intentionally (using a symbolic pre-cue displayed centrally). The hypothesis of two different mechanisms of attentional control in substitution masking was confirmed.

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

[2]  P. Rabbitt,et al.  Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: time course of activation and resistance to interruption , 1989 .

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

[4]  H. J. Muller,et al.  Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: time course of activation and resistance to interruption. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  ● Pytorch,et al.  Attention! , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[7]  Talis Bachmann,et al.  Object substitution and its relation to other forms of visual masking: reply to James Enns , 2005, Vision Research.

[8]  M. Posner,et al.  Orienting of Attention* , 1980, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

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

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

[11]  Talis Bachmann.  Psychophysiology of Visual Masking: The Fine Structure of Conscious Experience , 1994 .

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

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

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

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

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

[17]  Talis Bachmann,et al.  Time course of the subjective contrast enhancement for a second stimulus in successively paired above-threshold transient forms: Perceptual retouch instead of forward masking , 1988, Vision Research.

[18]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Visual marking: using time in visual selection , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[19]  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.

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