Decrease in metacontrast masking following adaptation to flicker

Selective adaptation was used to explore the characterisitcs of a metacontrast masking stimulus which contribute to its effectiveness in masking the test stimulus. Subjects adapted for 10 s to a configuration like the masking stimulus that was either continuously on or flickering. Following this they viewed a metacontrast presentation and estimated the brightness of the test stimulus. Prior adaptation to a continuously present stimulus did not appreciably affect metacontrast masking; however, masking was greatly reduced following adaptation to flickering stimuli. These results are consistent with recent models of metacontrast masking based on transient and sustained visual channels.     

On the use of metacontrast to assess magnocellular function in dyslexic readers

It has been proposed that dyslexia is the result of a deficit in the magnocellular system. Reduced metacontrast masking in dyslexic readers has been taken as support for this view. In metacontrast, a masking stimulus reduces the visibility of a spatially adjacent target stimulus when the target stimulus precedes the masking stimulus by about 30–100 msec. Recent evidence indicates that the latency difference between the magnocellular and parvocellular subcortical pathways is at most 20 msec and may be as small as only 5 msec, or even less. This makes it difficult to attribute the latency in metacontrast to the latency differences between the magnocellular and parvocellular systems. It is therefore problematic to attribute reduced metacontrast masking to a deficit in the magnocellular system.     

On the use of metacontrast to assess magnocellular function in dyslexic readers.

It has been proposed that dyslexia is the result of a deficit in the magnocellular system. Reduced metacontrast masking in dyslexic readers has been taken as support for this view. In metacontrast, a masking stimulus reduces the visibility of a spatially adjacent target stimulus when the target stimulus precedes the masking stimulus by about 30-100 msec. Recent evidence indicates that the latency difference between the magnocellular and parvocellular subcortical pathways is at most 20 msec and may be as small as only 5 msec, or even less. This makes it difficult to attribute the latency in metacontrast to the latency differences between the magnocellular and parvocellular systems. It is therefore problematic to attribute reduced metacontrast masking to a deficit in the magnocellular system.     

Individual differences in metacontrast masking regarding sensitivity and response bias

In metacontrast masking target visibility is modulated by the time until a masking stimulus appears. The effect of this temporal delay differs across participants in such a way that individual human observers' performance shows distinguishable types of masking functions which remain largely unchanged for months. Here we examined whether individual differences in masking functions depend on different response criteria in addition to differences in discrimination sensitivity. To this end we reanalyzed previously published data and conducted a new experiment for further data analyses. Our analyses demonstrate that a distinction of masking functions based on the type of masking stimulus is superior to a distinction based on the target-mask congruency. Individually different masking functions are based on individual differences in discrimination sensitivities and in response criteria. Results suggest that individual differences in metacontrast masking result from individually different criterion contents.     

Attend to it now or lose it forever: selective attention,metacontrast masking,and object substitution

Metacontrast masking occurs when the visibility of a brief target stimulus is decreased by the subsequent appearance of another nearby visual stimulus. Early explanations of the phenomenon involved low-level mechanisms, but subsequent studies have suggested a role for selective attention. The results of three experiments presented here extend previous findings to the metacontrast paradigm. It is shown that the strength of metacontrast masking increases with the number of distractor items in a display, decreases when the target location is validly but not invalidly precued, and is eliminated when search for the target is efficient (pop-out search) but not when search is inefficient (serial search). A connection between metacontrast masking and object substitution masking is considered.     

Masking of and by tactile pressure stimuli

Masking of and by tactile pressure stimuli was investigated in six Ss as a function of stimulus intensity (force) and stimulus onset asynchrony. Increase in the force of the masked stimulus and decrease in the force of the masking stimulus were inversely related to the magnitude of masking, as defined by either a relative or an absolute decrease in sensitivity. The introduction of stimulus onset asynchrony produced both forward and backward masking, the latter being of somewhat larger magnitude. Comparisons are made with results obtained in visual metacontrast masking.     

The effect of a red background on location backward masking by structure

It has been established that diffuse red light partially suppresses the magnocellular (M) visual pathway. Previous research reported that metacontrast masking is reduced (improved accuracy) with a red background, consistent with a reduction in M pathway response from the mask. In contrast, a recent study used location backward masking by noise and found that accuracy decreased with a red background--theoretically due to suppression of the M pathway's initial localization of the target. The present study provides the first report examining the effect of red light on performance in a location backward masking by structure task. Results revealed a main effect of a red (as opposed to a green) background on reducing masking (improved accuracy) with a medium effect size (eta2 = .23). This effect was strongest at the 47- and 60-msec stimulus onset asynchronies. Results suggest that red light primarily decreases interference from the mask in location backward masking by structure.     

On the physiological basis of masking with dotted visual noise1

In this paper, consideration is given to the physiological foundations of visual masking with successive stimuli. Three experiments are performed with dot patterns. The results indicate that none of the classic characteristics of lateral inhibitory interaction are obtained with this type of stimulus material. A rather informal demonstration is then described that suggests further that lateral inhibitory interaction may also not be a satisfactory explanation of metacontrast and other kinds of masking that use continuous figures.     

Individually different weighting of multiple processes underlies effects of metacontrast masking

Metacontrast masking occurs when a mask follows a target stimulus in close spatial proximity. Target visibility varies with stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between target and mask in individually different ways leading to different masking functions with corresponding phenomenological reports. We used individual differences to determine the processes that underlie metacontrast masking. We assessed individual masking functions in a masked target discrimination task using different masking conditions and applied factor-analytical techniques on measures of sensitivity. Results yielded two latent variables that (1) contribute to performance with short and long SOA, respectively, (2) relate to specific stimulus features, and (3) differentially correlate with specific subjective percepts. We propose that each latent variable reflects a specific process. Two additional processes may contribute to performance with short and long SOAs, respectively. Discrimination performance in metacontrast masking results from individually different weightings of two to four processes, each of which contributes to specific subjective percepts.     

A Comparison of Two Lateral Inhibitory Models of Metacontrast

Metacontrast, an apparent reduction in brightness of a target that is followed by a non-overlapping mask, has been modeled with simulated neural nets incorporating either recurrent lateral inhibition or forward and backward inhibition with lateral components. A one-layer lateral inhibitory model (B. Bridgeman, 1971, Psychological Review 78, 528-539) and a six-layer model (G. Francis, 1997, Psychological Review 104, 572-594) both simulate the basic metacontrast effect, showing that stimulus-dependent activity that reverberates for some time in the model after stimulus offset is essential to simulate metacontrast. The six-layer model does not simulate monotonic masking with low response criterion, an essential property of metacontrast; the lateral inhibitory model uses duration of reverberation to simulate the criterion. Each model simulates several variations of masking, such as changing the relative energy of target and mask, but neither can handle effects of practice or attention that apparently engage higher processing levels. Copyright 2001 Academic Press.     

Backward masking by pattern stimulus offset

The backward masking effects of the offset of a pattern stimulus on the apparent contrast of a target stimulus were determined to be a function of target onset-mask offset asynchrony. With spatially overlapping stimuli and binocular viewing, a monotonic function similar to that characterizing early dark adaptation was obtained; with a dichoptically presented disk onset as target and a surrounding ring offset as mask, a typical U-shaped metacontrast effect as a function of target onset-mask offset asynchrony was obtained. These mask-offset effects are related to the possible roles of (a) peripheral "off" mechanisms and (b) central metacontrast mechanisms in terminating visual response persistence in sustained channels.     

Summation versus suppression in metacontrast masking: On the potential pitfalls of using metacontrast masking to assess perceptual–motor dissociation

A briefly flashed target stimulus can become “invisible” when immediately followed by a mask—a phenomenon known as backward masking, which constitutes a major tool in the cognitive sciences. One form of backward masking is termed metacontrast masking. It is generally assumed that in metacontrast masking, the mask suppresses activity on which the conscious perception of the target relies. This assumption biases conclusions when masking is used as a tool—for example, to study the independence between perceptual detection and motor reaction. This is because other models can account for reduced perceptual performance without requiring suppression mechanisms. In this study, we used signal detection theory to test the suppression model against an alternative view of metacontrast masking, referred to as the summation model. This model claims that target- and mask-related activations fuse and that the difficulty in detecting the target results from the difficulty to discriminate this fused response from the response produced by the mask alone. Our data support this alternative view. This study is not a thorough investigation of metacontrast masking. Instead, we wanted to point out that when a different model is used to account for the reduced perceptual performance in metacontrast masking, there is no need to postulate a dissociation between perceptual and motor responses to account for the data. Metacontrast masking, as implemented in the Fehrer–Raab situation, therefore is not a valid method to assess perceptual–motor dissociations.     

Metacontrast suppression and criterion content: A discriminant function analysis

Three test and three mask energies of a metacontrast display were varied orthogonally and randomly over trials. The stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) separating them was varied over blocks of trials from 0 to 180 msec in 30-msec steps. Both the accuracy in judging the test and the coherence (consistency) of the judgments were U-shaped functions of SOA. Thus, metacontrast suppression is in part due to inadequate information. In addition, mask energy was found to correlate negatively with judgments of the test at short SO As but positively at longer SOAs. This indicates that part of the masking effect is due to inappropriate use of information. Certain similarities were noted between these findings and those obtained with judgments of frequency in the auditory-recognition masking paradigm. In general, the results indicate that subjects respond to different features of the stimulus situation as SOA varies.     

Individual differences in metacontrast masking are enhanced by perceptual learning

In vision research metacontrast masking is a widely used technique to reduce the visibility of a stimulus. Typically, studies attempt to reveal general principles that apply to a large majority of participants and tend to omit possible individual differences. The neural plasticity of the visual system, however, entails the potential capability for individual differences in the way observers perform perceptual tasks. We report a case of perceptual learning in a metacontrast masking task that leads to the enhancement of two types of adult human observers despite identical learning conditions. In a priming task both types of observers exhibited the same priming effects, which were insensitive to learning. Findings suggest that visual processing of target stimuli in the metacontrast masking task is based on neural levels with sufficient plasticity to enable the development of two types of observers, which do not contribute to processing of target stimuli in the priming task.     

Metacontrast masking is processed before grapheme–color synesthesia

We investigated the physiological mechanism of grapheme–color synesthesia using metacontrast masking. A metacontrast target is rendered invisible by a mask that is delayed by about 60 ms; the target and mask do not overlap in space or time. Little masking occurs, however, if the target and mask are simultaneous. This effect must be cortical, because it can be obtained dichoptically. To compare the data for synesthetes and controls, we developed a metacontrast design in which nonsynesthete controls showed weaker dichromatic masking (i.e., the target and mask were in different colors) than monochromatic masking. We accomplished this with an equiluminant target, mask, and background for each observer. If synesthetic color affected metacontrast, synesthetes should show monochromatic masking more similar to the weak dichromatic masking among controls, because synesthetes could add their synesthetic color to the monochromatic condition. The target–mask pairs used for each synesthete were graphemes that elicited strong synesthetic colors. We found stronger monochromatic than dichromatic U-shaped metacontrast for both synesthetes and controls, with optimal masking at an asynchrony of 66 ms. The difference in performance between the monochromatic and dichromatic conditions in the synesthetes indicates that synesthesia occurs at a later processing stage than does metacontrast masking.     

Visual attention and the mechanism of metacontrast

The U-shaped metacontrast function may result from the superimposition of two monotonic components which reflect the effects of mechanisms similar to the peripheral and central processes suggested for backward pattern masking by Turvey (Psychol Rev 80:1–52, 1973). In an experiment using the disc-ring paradigm, it was demonstrated that the decreasing and increasing branches of the metacontrast function are differently affected by the exposure duration of the mask and a task-irrelevant stimulus (distractor) appearing in the contralateral visual hemifield. The phenomenal representation of masking is different for the two parts of the curve. It is suggested that masking in the second part of the masking function, but not in the first, is related to the control of visual attention.     

Quantitative theories of metacontrast masking

In metacontrast masking, the effect of a visual mask stimulus on the perceptual strength of a target stimulus varies with the stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) between them. As SOA increases, the target percept first becomes weaker, bottoms out at an intermediate SOA, and then increases for still larger SOAs. As a result, a plot of target percept strength against SOA produces a U-shaped masking curve. Theories have proposed special mechanisms to account for this curve, but new mathematical analyses indicate that it is a robust characteristic of a large class of neurally plausible systems. The author describes 3 quantitative methods of accounting for the U-shaped masking effect and analyzes 4 previously published mathematical models of masking. The models produce the masking curve through mask blocking, whereby a strong internal representation of the target blocks the mask's effects.     

The influence of metacontrast masking on detection and spatial-choice judgments: an apparent distinction between automatic and attentive response mechanisms

Several studies of metacontrast masking in the 1960s apparently showed that the latency of simple detection responses was uninfluenced by the phenomenal dimming of the target induced by the mask. More recent studies using more suitable methodologies have clearly shown that such is not the case for situations in which the masking is a monotonically decreasing function of stimulus onset asynchrony. Experiment 1 investigated this issue for the situation in which masking is a U-shaped function of stimulus onset asynchrony. Contrary to the results obtained in monotonic masking situations, simple detection responses were not slowed by the masking. Experiment 2 demonstrated that although detection responses are not slowed in the U-shaped masking situation, spatial-choice judgments are. Experiments 3 and 4 indicated that this masking effect on spatial-choice reaction time is lost relatively rapidly with practice. However, changing the stimulus-response assignments reinstates the effect. The experiments suggest that for the situation in which U-shaped masking functions are obtained, responses that require attention (spatial-choice judgments early in practice or after stimulus-response relationships have been switched) are influenced by the metacontrast-induced phenomenal dimming, whereas responses that are automatic (i.e., detection responses; practiced spatial-choice judgments with consistent stimulus-response mappings) are not.     

U-shaped backward contour masking during stroboscopic motion.

Two stationary and spatially separated visual stimuli, presented briefly and successively in time, are known to produce stroboscopic motion whose vividness is a U-shaped function of the stimulus onset asynchrony. Contour masking is also known to occur under such stimulus conditions. The findings show that the contour masking is confined to only the first stimulus and that it, like metacontrast, is a backward U-shaped function of the stimulus onset asynchrony. A simple model, based on known psychophysical and neurophysiological properties, is proposed to explain these results.     

Decoupling stimulus duration from brightness in metacontrast masking: data and models

A brief target that is visible when displayed alone can be rendered invisible by a trailing stimulus (metacontrast masking). It has been difficult to determine the temporal dynamics of masking to date because increments in stimulus duration have been invariably confounded with apparent brightness (Bloch's law). In the research reported here, stimulus luminance was adjusted to maintain constant brightness across all durations. Increasing target duration yielded classical U-shaped masking functions, whereas increasing mask duration yielded monotonic decreasing functions. These results are compared with predictions from 6 theoretical models, with the lateral inhibition model providing the best overall fit. It is tentatively suggested that different underlying mechanisms may mediate the U-shaped and monotonic functions obtained with increasing durations of target and mask, respectively.