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.     

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.     

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.     

Relative blindsight arises from a criterion confound in metacontrast masking: implications for theories of consciousness

Relative blindsight is said to occur when different levels of subjective awareness are obtained at equality of objective performance. Using metacontrast masking, Lau and Passingham (2006) reported relative blindsight in normal observers at the shorter of two stimulus-onset asynchronies (SOAs) between target and mask. Experiment 1 replicated the critical asymmetry in subjective awareness at equality of objective performance. We argue that this asymmetry cannot be regarded as evidence for relative blindsight because the observers' responses were based on different attributes of the stimuli (criterion contents) at the two SOAs. With an invariant criterion content (Experiment 2), there was no asymmetry in subjective awareness across the two SOAs even though objective performance was the same. Experiment 3 examined the effect of criterion level on estimates of relative blindsight. Collectively, the present results question whether metacontrast masking is a suitable paradigm for establishing relative blindsight. Implications for theories of consciousness are discussed.     

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.     

Temporal characteristics of visibility in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens) assessed by a visual-masking paradigm

We used the visual-masking paradigm to compare temporal characteristics of chimpanzee vision with those of humans. Two types of masking experiments were conducted. One type involved masking by noise, in which the visibility of the geometric pattern target was tested with a spatially overlapping noise as the mask stimulus. The other type involved paracontrast and metacontrast masking, in which the mask stimuli flanked but did not spatially overlap the target stimuli. Temporal characteristics regarding the visibility of target stimuli, displayed as functions of temporal asynchrony between target and mask stimuli, differed with the mask type in chimpanzees as in humans. Peak deterioration in visibility occurred at the point of minimum temporal asynchrony both in forward and backward masking by noise, but was not at 0 ms temporal asynchrony when the target and mask stimuli did not spatially overlap. These results suggest that chimpanzees and humans share the underlying mechanisms in two kinds of temporal inhibition caused by spatially overlapping and non-overlapping mask stimuli.     

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.     

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.     

Unconscious priming by color and form: different processes and levels

Using a metacontrast masking paradigm, prior studies have shown (a) that a target's color information and form information, can be processed without awareness and (b) that unconscious color processing occurs at early, wavelength-dependent levels in the cortical information processing hierarchy. Here we used a combination of paracontrast and metacontrast masking techniques to explore unconscious color and form priming effects produced by blue, green, and neutral stimuli. We found that color priming in normal observers is significantly reduced when an additional paracontrast mask precedes the target at optimal masking SOAs. However, no reduction of form-priming effects was obtained at similar optimal paracontrast SOAs. We conclude that unconscious color priming depends on an early, wavelength- or stimulus-dependent response of color neurons located at early cortical levels whereas unconscious form priming occurs at later levels.     

OBJECT SUBSTITUTION:

Abstract —Can four dots that surround, but do not touch, a target shape act as a mask to reduce target discriminability? Although existing theories of metacontrast and pattern masking say "no." we report this occurs when targets appear in unpredictable locations. In three experiments, a four-dot mask was compared with a standard metacontrast mask that surrounded the target. Although accuracy was predictably different for the two masks at a central display location in Experiment I. both masks had similar strong effects on accuracy in parafoveal locations. Experiment 2 revealed that both four-dot and metacontrast masking were insensitive to contour proximity in parafoveal display locations, and Experiment 3 showed that four-dot masking could occur even at a central location if attention was distributed among several targets. We propose that targets in unattended locations are coded with low spotiotemporal resolution, leaving them vulnerable to substitution by the four dots when attention is directed to them.     

W-shaped and U-shaped functions obtained for monoptic and dichoptic disk-disk masking

For nonmetacontrast (disk-disk) masking, if the outer diameter of the mask equals that of an annulus which produces typical metacontrast functions, U- and W-shaped functions will be obtained if (1) the stimuli are viewed dichoptically and monoptically, respectively. and (2) the mask is no more than about 10 times the energy (luminance x duration) of the target. As this energy ratio is approached, both types of functions become monotonic. These shapes suggest that interactions at different visual-pathway loci may he mapped by visual masking functions.     

Attention attenuates metacontrast masking

The influence of attention on perceptual awareness was examined using metacontrast masking. Attention was manipulated with endogenous cues to assess the effects on the temporal and spatial parameters of target visibility. Experiment 1 examined the time course of effective masking when the target and mask set were presented at an attended vs. an unattended location. The valid allocation of attention decreased the magnitude of the masking effect (i.e. increased visibility) for approximately 80 ms. Furthermore, even with spatial displacements of the target and mask and center-to-center separations of 1.5 degrees or 2.7 degrees of visual angle (Experiment 2), target visibility was increased when attention was validly allocated. These results indicate that attention influences low-level visual processes to enhance visual awareness.     

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.     

Experiments on the Fehrer–Raab effect and the ‘Weather Station Model’ of visual backward masking

The Fehrer–Raab effect (simple reaction time is unaffected by metacontrast masking of the test stimulus) seems to imply that a stimulus can trigger a voluntary reaction without reaching a conscious representation. However, it is also possible that the mask triggers the reaction, and that the masked test stimulus causes a focussing of attention from which processing of the mask profits, thus reaching conscious representation earlier. This is predicted by the Weather Station Model of visual masking. Three experiments tested this explanation. Experiment 1 showed that the masked test stimulus caused a temporal shift of the mask. Experiment 2 showed that the reaction in the Fehrer–Raab effect was not exclusively triggered by a conscious representation of the test stimulus: the mask was involved in evoking the reaction. Experiment 3 again revealed a temporal shift of the mask. However, the shift was only about half as large as the Fehrer–Raab effect. The psychometric functions suggested that the observers used two different cues for their temporal order judgments. The results cast doubts on whether judged temporal order yields a direct estimate of the time of conscious perception. Some methodological alternatives are discussed.     

A novel paradigm reveals the role of reentrant visual processes in object substitution masking

Object substitution masking (OSM) occurs when an initial display of a target and mask continues with the mask alone, creating a mismatch between the reentrant hypothesis, triggered by the initial display, and the ongoing low-level activity. We tested the proposition that the critical factor in OSM is not whether the mask remains in view after target offset, but whether the representation of the mask is sufficiently stronger than that of the target when the reentrant signal arrives. In Experiment 1, a variable interstimulus interval (ISI) was inserted between the initial display and the mask alone. The trailing mask was presumed to selectively boost the strength of the mask representation relative to that of the target. As predicted, OSM occurred at intermediate ISIs, at which the mask was presented before the arrival of the reentrant signal, creating a mismatch, but not at long ISIs, at which a comparison between the reentrant signal and the low-level activity had already been made. Experiment 2, conducted in dark-adapted viewing, ruled out the possibility that low-level inhibitory contour interactions (metacontrast masking) had played a significant role in Experiment 1. Metacontrast masking was further ruled out in Experiment 3, in which the masking contours were reduced to four small dots. We concluded that OSM does not depend on extended presentation of the mask alone, but on a mismatch between the reentrant signals and the ongoing activity at the lower level. The present results place constraints on estimates of the timing of reentrant signals involved in OSM.     

Pathways in type-B (U-shaped) metacontrast

Rod and cone targets were crossed, in every combination, with rod and cone masks in flanking-bars metacontrast. Strong type-B (U-shaped) metacontrast was obtained in each condition, contrary to the claim that rod and cone masking are independent. In each condition, visibility declined steadily with stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) in trials in which target and mask appeared to be simultaneous, and increased with SOA in trials in which they appeared to be successive. The 'U' results from collapsing across these different types of trials, which may reflect distinct monotonic processes in masking. Under the light adaptation conditions used the time, Tmax, at which metacontrast was at a maximum was delayed by about 25 ms if rods, rather than cones, detected the target. Whether rods or cones detected the mask hardly altered Tmax.     

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 labile memory buffer in the attentional blink: masking the T2 representation by onset transients mediates the AB

Report of a second target (T2) is impaired when presented within 500 ms of the first (T1). This attentional blink (AB) is known to cause a delay in T2 processing during which T2 must be stored in a labile memory buffer. We explored the buffer's characteristics using different types of masks after T2. These characteristics were inferred by determining what attributes of T2 are hindered by a given form of masking. In Experiments 1-3, trailing metacontrast and four-dot masks produced ABs of equal magnitudes, implicating the onset-transient triggered by the mask as the mechanism underlying the AB and strongly suggesting a locus in early vision. In Experiment 4, metacontrast and four-dot masks were presented in a common-onset masking (COM) paradigm in which a brief, combined display of T2 and the mask was followed by a longer display of the mask alone. COM is thought to occur late in the sequence of processing events. No AB occurred with COM, confirming the critical role of the mask's onset transients and ruling out a high-level locus for the labile memory buffer.     

Inhibition and decay of motor and nonmotor priming

Motor responses can be facilitated by congruent visual stimuli and prolonged by incongruent visual stimuli that are made invisible by masking (direct motor priming). Recent studies on direct motor priming showed a reversal of these priming effects when a three-stimulus paradigm was used in which a prime was followed by a mask and a target stimulus was presented after a delay. A similar three-stimulus paradigm on nonmotor priming, however, showed no reversal of priming effects when the mask was used as a cue for processing of the following target stimulus (cue priming). Experiment 1 showed that the time interval between mask and target is crucial for the reversal of priming. Therefore, the time interval between mask and target was varied in three experiments to see whether cue priming is also subject to inhibition at a certain time interval. Cues indicated (1) the stimulus modality of the target stimulus, (2) the task to be performed on a multidimensional auditory stimulus, or (3) part of the motor response. Whereas direct motor priming showed the reversal of priming about 100 msec after mask presentation, cue priming effects simply decayed during the 300 msec after mask presentation. These findings provide boundary conditions for accounts of inverse priming effects.     

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.