1976
DOI: 10.1068/p050079
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Integration and Interruption in the Masking of Form by Form

Abstract: Paris of geometric forms of equal area were presented, one form after another, with interstimulus intervals t ranging from 0 to 250 ms. The subject's task in experiment 1 was to recognise both stimuli. Identification of the form presented first (backward masking) across all values of t was of a nonmonotonic nature, with greatest impairment at values of t from 30 to 60 ms. Identification of the second form presented (forward masking) increased monotonically with increasing t. Different forms were recognised wit… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
65
0

Year Published

1979
1979
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
5
65
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The second delay durations fell in the range of iconic memory. Thus, there is a possibility that even though the retro-cue and probe item did not spatially overlap, a combination of eye movements and the arrival of the probe item may have truncated processing of the retrocue via interruption masking (Bachmann & Allik, 1976;Spencer & Shuntich, 1970;reviewed in Enns & Di Lollo, 2000). The strongest evidence that interruption masking and/or eye movements cannot explain the present data is the eye movement control study (Experiment 1a).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The second delay durations fell in the range of iconic memory. Thus, there is a possibility that even though the retro-cue and probe item did not spatially overlap, a combination of eye movements and the arrival of the probe item may have truncated processing of the retrocue via interruption masking (Bachmann & Allik, 1976;Spencer & Shuntich, 1970;reviewed in Enns & Di Lollo, 2000). The strongest evidence that interruption masking and/or eye movements cannot explain the present data is the eye movement control study (Experiment 1a).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our aim was to degrade the perceptual representation of the stimuli in the RSVP stream (T1, T2, and distractors) so as to render the task more difficult in the presence of the camouflage mask relative to trials in which the stimuli were presented without the mask. Prior research has shown that such a mask can impair accuracy by degrading the information required to perform the task (Bachmann & Allik, 1976;Brehaut, Enns, & Di Lollo, 1999;Enns, 2004; for a review, see Breitmeyer, 1984). The presence of a camouflage mask should impair performance in the AB and, thus, make the task more difficult (Ouimet & Jolicoeur, in press).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To investigate perceptual stimulus processing, we employed a backward masking procedure (Breitmeyer, 1984;Turvey, 1973) and presented a random visual noise pattern shortly after the target stimulus. This kind of masking is known to selectively influence early perceptual stimulus processing (see, e.g., Bachmann & Allik, 1976;Smith & Wolfgang, 2004;Turvey, 1973). The square was presented for three different time intervals (32, 48, or 64 msec) before being masked.…”
Section: University Of Tübingen Tübingen Germanymentioning
confidence: 99%