The process of perceptual retouch: Nonspecific afferent activation dynamics in explaining visual masking

Abstract

on the notion of interaction of the specific and nonspecific afferent visual systems is presented. Discussionis focused on nonmonotonicmasking functions. In particular, it is proposed that in order for visual information (patterns, forms, etc.) to be consciously perceived,both specificretina-genicula-striate impulses and nonspecificretina-reticulacortical impulses should converge in the same cortical space. Nonspecific activity is shown to be necessary for subjective awareness. This activity is shown to be of longer latency than specificactivity. It is concluded that trailing conscious-experience-generating impulses are elicited by collateral activity from the specific information received from the first stimulus. These impulses reach the cortex at the same moment as the specific activity of the second (masking)stimulus as coded,whichhas a relatively higher signal-to-noise ratio in the given retinotopically specJfied cortical space. Consequently, subjects consciously perceive the second stimulus. This operation of awareness generation is termed perceptual retouch and is considered as a special psychologicalmechanism worthy of psychophysical study.Classical works in the physiology of arousal and nonspecific sensory systems have proved convincingly that the neurophysiological substrate necessary for energizing the brain and providing sufficient activity for the manifestation of conscious experience (perceptual awareness) is located subcortically and consists of the brainstem reticular formation and nonspecific thalamic activating system (Dixon, 1971; Jasper, Proctor, Knighton, Noshay, & Costello, 1958;Magoun, 1958;Riklan& Levita, 1969;Smirnov, Muchnik, & Shandurina, 1978; Worden, Swazey, & Adelman, 1975).The importance of energetic, rather than purely structural or algoristic, processes in visual masking and information processing is rarely stressed. It has been shown, however, that percepts evolve and accumulate over time (Eriksen & Schultz, 1978). This perceptogenetic or microgenetic process takes a relatively long time (see Bachmann, 1977Bachmann, , 1980Flavell & Draguns, 1957;Kahneman & Norman, 1964;Kragh & Smith, 1970; Lange, 1893;Nikitin, 1905;Vekker, 1974). Furthermore, the time for specific impulses to reach the highest levels of the nervous system is much shorter than the whole microgenetic process. Thus, we have reason to believe that, first, much of this evolution of subjective experience ofThe author wishes to convey his sincerest thanks to Professor Charles W. Eriksen for his most generous help in making this article more idiomatic and succinct. The author's mailing address is: Department of Psychology, Tartu State University, 78 Tiigi Street, Tartu, Estonian SSR, 202400 U.S.S.R. the presented actual input consists of heterarchic cyclic activity rather than purely of afference, and, second, the temporally trailing nonspecific sensory activities playa crucial role in this process.The present article will argue that, in visual masking, the interaction of specific sensory systems with nonspecific "ene...

Priming of mental operations by masked stimuli

“…Such an error pattern rules out interpretations in terms of fastguessing triggered by the mere detection of the prime (Yellott, 1971). The error pattern conflicts also with the hypothesis that primes facilitate or inhibit only the processing of the mask (Bachmann, 1984;Neumann & Klotz, 1994). Further evidence against the latter hypothesis comes from the finding that priming effects increased with increases in SOA, whereas prime recognition decreased with increases in SOA, which renders it unlikely that the priming effect is mediated by perceptual effects of the prime.…”

Metacontrast masking and attention do not interact

“…Selective attention has facilitative, as well as inhibitory, effects in almost all perceptual tasks and regardless of criterion contents (Posner, 1980;Smith, Ratcliff, & Wolfgang, 2004). However, many early theoretical models of masking do not include a term or a mechanism for the effects of attention, implying that these models assume that attention and masking are independent processes (e.g., Bachmann, 1984;Breitmeyer & Ganz, 1976;Bridgeman, 1971;Francis, 2000;Ogmen, 1993;Weisstein, Ozog, & Szoc, 1975). This does not necessarily mean that these models dismiss the role of attention.…”

Recent models and findings in visual backward masking: A comparison, review, and update

“…The Perceptual Retouch Theory of Visual Masking A model of visual masking based on PR was introduced by Bachmann ( 1984) and elaborated more recently in his monograph on the psychophysiology of visual masking (Bachmann, 1994). Since interactions between activities of two anatomically distinct pathways assume a key role, one can consider it a two-process model (Bachmann,(997).…”

“…Since the dual-channel, sustained-transient approach to visual masking was introduced about two decades ago, several new models of backward masking and metacontrast have been proposed as alternative approaches to visual masking. In this article, we outline, review, and evaluate three such approaches: an extension of the dual-channel approach as realized in the neural network model of retino-cortical dynamics (Ogmen, 1993), the perceptual retouch theory (Bachmann, 1984(Bachmann, , 1994, and the boundary contour system (Francis, 1997;Grossberg & Mingolla, 1985b). Recent psychophysical and electrophysiological findings relevant to backward masking are reviewed and, whenever possible, are related to the aforementioned models.…”

“…Third, backward masking can be used as a tool to investigate the temporal sequencing and various levels of information processing in the visual system (for psychophysical approaches, see Bachmann, 1984;Bowen & Wilson, 1994;Michaels & Turvey, 1979;Muise, LeBlanc, Lavoie, & Arsenault, 1991;Turvey, 1973; for neurophysiological approaches, see Bridgeman, 1975Bridgeman, , 1980Kovacs, Vogels, & Orban, 1995;Macknik & Livingstone, 1998;Rolls, Tovee, & Panzeri, 1999;Thompson & Schall, 1999). Psychophysical applications of these masking paradigms often simply assume that the after-coming mask acts to erase visual information or to interrupt its further processing.…”