Grouping based feature attribution in metacontrast masking

• Authors: Thomas U. Otto

Abstracts

EN

The visibility of a target can be strongly suppressed by metacontrast masking. Still, some features of the target can be perceived within the mask. Usually, these rare cases of feature mis-localizations are assumed to reflect errors of the visual system. To the contrary, I will show that feature "mis-localizations" in metacontrast masking follow rules of motion grouping and, hence, should be viewed as part of a systematic feature attribution process.

Keywords

EN

metacontrast masking; feature attribution; feature integration; motion grouping; attention

• Publisher: Wyższa Szkoła Finansów i Zarządzania w Warszawie
• Journal: Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Year: 2007
• Volume: 3
• Issue: 1-2
• Pages: 107-109

Contributors

author

Thomas U. Otto

• Laboratory of Psychophysics, Brain Mind Institute, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland

References

• Öğmen, H., Otto, T. U., & Herzog, M. H. (2006). Perceptual grouping induces non-retinotopic feature attribution in human vision.Vision Research, 46, 3234-3242.[PubMed]
• Otto, T. U., Öğmen, H., & Herzog, M. H. (2006). The flight path of the phoenix-the visible trace of invisible elements in human vision.Journal of Vision, 6, 1079-1086.[PubMed]
• Scharlau, I. (2007). Temporal processes in prime-mask interaction: Assessing perceptual consequences of masked information.Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 241-255.http://www.ac-psych.org/index.php?id=2&rok=2007&issue=1-2#article_52
• Stewart, A. L., & Purcell, D. G. (1970). U-shaped masking functions in visual backward masking - effects of target configuration and retinal position.Perception & Psychophysics, 7, 253-256.
• Stigler, R. (1910). Chronophotische Studien über den Umgebungskontrast.Pflügers Archiv für die gesamte Physiologie, 134, 365-435.
• Stoper, A. E., & Banffy, S. (1977). Relation of split apparent motion to metacontrast.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 258-277.[PubMed]
• Toch, H. H. (1956). The perceptual elaboration of stroboscopic presentations.American Journal of Psychology, 69, 345-358.[PubMed]
• Treisman, A., & Schmidt, H. (1982). Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects.Cognitive Psychology, 14, 107-141.[PubMed]
• Werner, H. (1935). Studies on contour: I. Qualitative analyses.American Journal of Psychology, 47, 40-64.
• Alpern, M. (1953). Metacontrast.Journal of the Optical Society of America, 43, 648-657.
• Breitmeyer, B. G., & Öğmen, H. (2006).Visual masking: Time slices through conscious and unconscious vision.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Burr, D. C. (1984). Summation of target and mask metacontrast stimuli.Perception, 13, 183-192.[PubMed]
• Hamker, F. E. (2007). The mechanisms of feature inheritance as predicted by a systems-level model of visual attention and decision making.Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 111-123.http://www.ac-psych.org/index.php?id=2&rok=2007&issue=1-2#article_43
• Herzog, M. H., & Koch, C. (2001). Seeing properties of an invisible object: feature inheritance and shine-through.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98, 4271-4275.[PubMed]
• Hogben, J. H., & Di Lollo, V. (1984). Practice reduces suppression in metacontrast and in apparent motion.Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 441-445.[PubMed]

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10053-008-0018-z