Metacontrast masking and attention do not interact

Agaoglu, Sevda; Breitmeyer, Bruno G.; Öğmen, Haluk

doi:10.3758/s13414-016-1090-y

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 91 publications

(119 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Electrophysiological recordings taken during OSM may help to elucidate the precise basis of masking, along with the application of models to data such as reported here and in previous instances of foveal OSM (Daar & Wilson, 2016;Filmer et al, 2015). Given the similarity of the conditions for OSM compared to other forms of masking that are independent of attention (e.g., metacontrast masking; Agaoglu, Breitmeyer, & Ogmen, 2016), these findings also draw into question whether OSM is indeed a Bspecial^form of masking.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

The role of executive attention in object substitution masking

Filmer

Wells-Peris

Dux

2017

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It was long thought that a key characteristic of object substitution masking (OSM) was the requirement for spatial attention to be dispersed for the mask to impact visual sensitivity. However, recent studies have provided evidence questioning whether spatial attention interacts with OSM magnitude, suggesting that the previous reports reflect the impact of performance being at ceiling for the low attention load conditions. Another technique that has been employed to modulate attention in OSM paradigms involves presenting the target stimulus foveally, but with another demanding task shown immediately prior, and thus taxing executive/ temporal attention. Under such conditions, when the two tasks occur in close temporal proximity relatively to greater temporal separation, masking is increased. However this effect could also be influenced by performance being at ceiling in some conditions. Here, we manipulated executive attention for a foveated target using a dual-task paradigm. Critically, ceiling performance was avoided by thresholding the target stimulus prior to it being presented under OSM conditions. We found no evidence for an interaction between executive attention load and masking. Collectively, along with the previous findings, our results provide compelling evidence that OSM as a phenomenon occurs independently of attention.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

The role of executive attention in object substitution masking

Filmer

Wells-Peris

Dux

2017

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If stimulus-driven attention and visibility/awareness work independently, we would expect no statistical interaction between the different singleton configurations and the levels of the masking interval (cf. Agaoglu et al, 2016 ). If, however, we find differences in the strength of stimulus-driven capture by singletons depending on the level of stimulus visibility/awareness (e.g., stronger singleton capture for better discriminated stimuli, like it has been shown with goal-directed attention; Simione et al, 2019 ), this would speak for some kind of dependency between stimulus-driven attention on the one hand and the level of visibility/awareness on the other hand.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We expected that if the influence of stimulus-driven attention capture is independent of the participants’ awareness of the targets and even can precede the awareness of the targets, then the influences of our attention manipulation and that of masking on stimulus visibility should be fairly additive or independent (cf. Agaoglu et al, 2016 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Awareness and Stimulus-Driven Spatial Attention as Independent Processes

Baier

Goller

Ansorge

2020

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To investigate the relation between attention and awareness, we manipulated visibility/awareness and stimulus-driven attention capture among metacontrast-masked visual stimuli. By varying the time interval between target and mask, we manipulated target visibility measured as target discrimination accuracies (ACCs; Experiments 1 and 2) and as subjective awareness ratings (Experiment 3). To modulate stimulus-driven attention capture, we presented the masked target either as a color-singleton (the target stands out by its unique color among homogeneously colored non-singletons), as a non-singleton together with a distractor singleton elsewhere (an irrelevant distractor has a unique color, whereas the target is colored like the other stimuli) or without a singleton (no stimulus stands out; only in Experiment 1). As color singletons capture attention in a stimulus-driven way, we expected target visibility/discrimination performance to be best for target singletons and worst with distractor singletons. In Experiments 1 and 2, we confirmed that the masking interval and the singleton manipulation influenced ACCs in an independent way and that attention capture by the singletons, with facilitated performance in target-singleton compared to distractor-singleton conditions, was found regardless of the interval-induced (in-)visibility of the targets. In Experiment 1, we also confirmed that attention capture was the same among participants with worse and better visibility/discrimination performance. In Experiment 2, we confirmed attention capture by color singletons with better discrimination performance for probes presented at singleton position, compared to other positions. Finally, in Experiment 3, we found that attention capture by target singletons also increased target awareness and that this capture effect on subjective awareness was independent of the effect of the masking interval, too. Together, results provide new evidence that stimulus-driven attention and awareness operate independently from one another and that stimulus-driven attention capture can precede awareness.

show abstract

“…We manipulated the attentional load by varying the number of bars in the display. We found that masking functions (i.e., performance as a function of target-mask stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA)) underwent uniform shifts of performance as set-size changed, suggesting that attention and metacontrast masking operate independently, an observation which was also supported by statistical analysis [54,55]. There are at least three limitations of controlling attention by set-size.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Attentional allocation of resources can also be controlled by changing set-size rather than by a spatial cue. In fact, in a recent study, we investigated the relationship between attention and metacontrast masking by varying set-size [54,55]. We presented an array of oriented bars around a virtual circle, and asked observers to report the orientation of a target bar, which was followed by an annulus with various onset asynchronies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Exogenous and Endogenous Attention on Metacontrast Masking

Agaoglu

Breitmeyer

Öğmen

2018

Vision

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To efficiently use its finite resources, the visual system selects for further processing only a subset of the rich sensory information. Visual masking and spatial attention control the information transfer from visual sensory-memory to visual short-term memory. There is still a debate whether these two processes operate independently or interact, with empirical evidence supporting both arguments. However, recent studies pointed out that earlier studies showing significant interactions between common-onset masking and attention suffered from ceiling and/or floor effects. Our review of previous studies reporting metacontrast-attention interactions revealed similar artifacts. Therefore, we investigated metacontrast-attention interactions by using an experimental paradigm, in which ceiling/floor effects were avoided. We also examined whether metacontrast masking is differently influenced by endogenous and exogenous attention. We analyzed mean absolute-magnitude of response-errors and their statistical distribution. When targets are masked, our results support the hypothesis that manipulations of the levels of metacontrast and of endogenous/exogenous attention have largely independent effects. Moreover, statistical modeling of the distribution of response-errors suggests weak interactions modulating the probability of “guessing” behavior for some observers in both types of attention. Nevertheless, our data suggest that any joint effect of attention and metacontrast can be adequately explained by their independent and additive contributions.

show abstract

Metacontrast masking and attention do not interact

Cited by 14 publications

References 91 publications

The role of executive attention in object substitution masking

The role of executive attention in object substitution masking

Awareness and Stimulus-Driven Spatial Attention as Independent Processes

Effects of Exogenous and Endogenous Attention on Metacontrast Masking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About