Vibrotactile masking: The role of response competition

When two tactile patterns, a target and a nontarget pattern, are presented in close temporal proximity to the same location, the nontarget pattern may interfere with the identification of the target. A series of experiments examined the extent to which the interference in target identification results from masking (interference in the representation of the target at an early stage of processing) or from response competition. A response competition view of pattern perception holds that both the target and nontarget are fully processed to the level of evoking responses. Interference is produced when subjects select the nontarget rather than the target. This view was tested with a paradigm developed in studies of selective attention. Pairs of tactile patterns were presented to subjects’ left index fingerpads. The amount of interference produced by a nontarget that is physically different from a target depends on whether the nontarget is associated with the same response as the target or a different response. The amount of masking also depends on the set of target and nontarget patterns that are used. The results support the conclusion that subjects have available a representation of both the target and the nontarget and that a substantial portion of the interference previously attributed to masking may be due to response competition.     

What is learned about nontarget items in simple visual search?

Human sensitivity to correlational structure between nontargets and likelihood of target presence in a visual letter-search task were studied in two experiments. In each of these experiments, the performance of subjects for whom the nontarget information was altered in the final trial block was compared with the performance of subjects for whom the nontarget information did not change. When stimulus strings were presented individually on a computer screen and subjects were required to make a yes-no decision about target presence (Experiment 1), the change in nontarget structure resulted in increased reaction times for target-absent trials. When subjects searched simultaneously for three possible targets (Experiment 2), the change in nontarget structure produced increased error rates and increased reaction times for both target-absent and target-present trials. Correlations between the amount of predictive information in individual stimulus strings and reaction times also showed that both switching and nonswitching subjects were sensitive to the nontarget context. However, neither self-reports of strategy nor postexperiment choices between context-consistent and -inconsistent letter strings indicated any explicit knowledge of the predictive information in the nontarget stimuli. Subjects can thus acquire and benefit from, apparently without awareness, information about subtle correlational structure in nontarget elements in simple visual search.     

Processing of sequential tactile patterns: effects of a neutral stimulus

The perception of a target pattern may be interfered with by the presentation of a nontarget pattern in close temporal and spatial proximity with it. The results from previous studies suggested that much of this interference is the result not of masking but of response competition, subjects responding with the nontarget instead of the target. Using a 4-to-2 paradigm in which four target patterns are mapped onto two responses, it was shown that neutral patterns (i.e., patterns with no responses associated with them) produce considerable interference. The amount of interference is less than that produced by patterns associated with incorrect responses but greater than that produced by patterns associated with correct responses. The amount of interference produced by neutral patterns did not vary as a function of the form of the neutral pattern (Experiments 1 and 2); however, the amount of interference did depend on the degree and nature of the similarity between the neutral and target patterns (Experiments 3 and 4). The results indicate that recent studies have underestimated the amount of interference due to masking and overestimated the amount due to response competition. Response competition may either hinder or help target categorization depending on the nontarget pattern.     

Tactile pattern perception by two fingers: Temporal interference and response competition

The identification of a spatial pattern (target) presented to one fingerpad may be interfered with by the presentation of a second pattern (nontarget) to either the same fingerpad or a second fingerpad. A portion of the interference appears to be due to masking and a portion to response competition. In the present study, vibrotactile spatial patterns were designed to extend over two fingerpads. Target and nontarget patterns were presented to the same two fingerpads with a temporal separation between the two patterns. The function relating target identification to the temporal separation between the target and nontarget was very similar to the functions obtained with one-finger patterns in temporal masking studies. Subsequent measurements showed that a substantial portion of the interference resulted from response competition. Pattern categorization was better when patterns were presented to two fingers on opposite hands than to two fingers on the same hand; however, there was more interference for patterns presented bilaterally than for patterns presented ipsilaterally. The results supported the conclusion that similar processes are involved in the perception of sequences of spatial patterns whether the patterns are presented to one or to two fingers.     

Nontarget columns and parafoveal target identification: Some limits on previously observed effects

Summary Three experiments were conducted to determine limits to the phenomenon in which a column of nontargets to the foveal side of a parafoveally presented target is more detrimental to identification than a column to the target's peripheral side, while a single nontarget to the peripheral side is more disruptive. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that proximity of nontarget characters in a column is not sufficent to produce the difference in the effect of the position of nontarget columns and single nontargets. Physical features of characters in the column allowing closure emerged as important to the effect of its position on target identification. Experiment 3 confirmed the findings of the first two experiments and showed, in addition, that performance is better with nontarget columns than with single nontargets because characters in the columns exert lateral interference on one another and thereby release such interference on the target.     

How do targets,nontargets, and scene context influence real-world object detection?

Humans excel at finding objects in complex natural scenes, but the features that guide this behaviour have proved elusive. We used computational modeling to measure the contributions of target, nontarget, and coarse scene features towards object detection in humans. In separate experiments, participants detected cars or people in a large set of natural scenes. For each scene, we extracted target-associated features, annotated the presence of nontarget objects (e.g., parking meter, traffic light), and extracted coarse scene structure from the blurred image. These scene-specific values were then used to model human reaction times for each novel scene. As expected, target features were the strongest predictor of detection times in both tasks. Interestingly, target detection time was additionally facilitated by coarse scene features but not by nontarget objects. In contrast, nontarget objects predicted target-absent responses in both person and car tasks, with contributions from target features in the person task. In most cases, features that speeded up detection tended to slow down rejection. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that humans show systematic variations in object detection that can be understood using computational modeling.     

The effect of spatial orientation on the perception of moving tactile stimuli

Previous studies have shown that the perception of spatial patterns, such as letters, presented to the hand is affected by the spatial orientation of the hand. The present study investigated how the perception of direction of motion across the fingerpads changes with the position of the hand in space. The moving stimuli were generated on two displays. In one condition, the displays were placed horizontally in front of the subject, with the subject’s thumb (target site) and index finger (nontarget site) placed flat on the displays. In a second condition, the displays were vertically oriented and gripped between the thumb and index finger. Using a selective-attention paradigm in which subjects are instructed to respond only to the direction of motion at the target site, performance was still affected by the direction of motion at the nontarget site. Changing the orientation of the displays changed the effectiveness of the nontarget in interfering with the identification of the target movement. Nontarget stimuli that produced no interference in the horizontal orientation did so in the vertical, and vice versa. It appears that subjects are not using the local direction of movement across the fingerpads to judge the relative direction of movement at the two sites; rather, they are using the external direction of movement.     

Perceptual processing at adjacent location son a single finger: Masking and response competition

When target patterns and nontarget patterns are presented either to the same or to adjacent locations on the distal pad of the index finger, the amount of interference in identifying targets depends on both the shape and the location of the nontarget (Horner, 1997). In the present study, the question of whether such interference is caused by masking (the masker in some way distorts the initial representation of the target) or by response competition (the observer mistakenly responds with the masker, rather than with the target) was investigated. A 4-to-2 paradigm was used (Craig, 1995), in which four stimuli were mapped to only two responses. Targets and nontargets were randomly selected from the set of four stimuli and presented to the same or adjacent locations on the same fingerpad. Both the distal pad and the medial pad of the index finger were tested, because innervation density varies proximodistally on the distal pad, but not on the medial pad. The results indicated that response competition was an important factor limiting perception. Furthermore, perception was affected by varying location on the distal pad, but not on the medial pad. Finally, varying location on the distal pad affected perception only when responses were based on pattern shape, not when responses were based on direction of motion. The results are discussed in terms of differences in innervation density between adjacent locations and possible resultant differences in the spatial filtering properties of the skin.     

Perceptual processing at adjacent locations on a single finger: masking and response competition

When target patterns and nontarget patterns are presented either to the same or to adjacent locations on the distal pad of the index finger, the amount of interference in identifying targets depends on both the shape and the location of the nontarget (Horner, 1997). In the present study, the question of whether such interference is caused by masking (the masker in some way distorts the initial representation of the target) or by response competition (the observer mistakenly responds with the masker, rather than with the target) was investigated. A 4-to-2 paradigm was used (Craig, 1995), in which four stimuli were mapped to only two responses. Targets and nontargets were randomly selected from the set of four stimuli and presented to the same or adjacent locations on the same fingerpad. Both the distal pad and the medial pad of the index finger were tested, because innervation density varies proximodistally on the distal pad, but not on the medial pad. The results indicated that response competition was an important factor limiting perception. Furthermore, perception was affected by varying location on the distal pad, but not on the medial pad. Finally, varying location on the distal pad affected perception only when responses were based on pattern shape, not when responses were based on direction of motion. The results are discussed in terms of differences in innervation density between adjacent locations and possible resultant differences in the spatial filtering properties of the skin.     

Tactile selective attention and temporal masking

The presentation of a nontarget stimulus to one fingerpad interferes with the identification of a target stimulus presented to a second fingerpad. This interference has been attributed to a failure of selective attention and, more specifically, to the nontarget’s eliciting a competing response. In the present study, the temporal interval between the target and nontarget was varied to determine the extent to which a nontarget primes a competing response. The results showed more interference when the nontarget was presented after the target than when it was presented before the target. Although still consistent with a response-competition explanation, this result offered no support for a priming explanation. The function relating the amount of interference to the temporal separation between the target and nontarget was similar to the functions obtained in studies of temporal masking, and this prompted a second experiment in which temporal masking was examined. These results, obtained with stimuli presented to the same fingerpad, indicate that response competition may be a major factor in temporal masking and that similar processes are involved in temporal masking and selective attention.     

The role of category information in word identification: A parallel decision model

Four experiments consider the role of semantic category information in word identification using a serial classification reaction time paradigm. Experimental variables were manipulated by varying the semantic properties of blocks of trials and the target search instructions. Experiments 1, 2, and 3 investigated the facilitation on target word recognition of manipulating the categorical homogeneity of the nontarget words. An homogeneous nontarget set facilitated the classification of unrelated target words. This category contrast effect was obtained in all conditions, although its magnitude depended upon target search instructions. Experiment 3 also investigated whether word identification was inhibited if subjects were prevented from utilizing the category information to distinguish target from nontarget words. Target and nontarget word identification was slower under such conditions. Experiment 4 demonstratd that both the category contrast and category interference effects were dependent upon the use of short response-stimulus intervals to define a functional semantic background. This suggests the category effects are perceptual in nature. Current models of word recognition cannot easily explain the findings. A committee decision model is outlined to accommodate the data; the model proposes that visual analysis, identification, and categorization proceed in parallel.     

Tactile attention and the perception of moving tactile stimuli

Three experiments investigated the ability of subjects to identify the direction of movement of a pattern across the skin. In Experiments 1 and 2, subjects were required to identify the direction of movement of a pattern presented to one fingerpad while another moving pattern was being presented to an adjacent fingerpad. Subjects were instructed to attend only to the target location. The results showed that accuracy was consistently higher and reaction times were consistently faster when the two patterns moved in the same direction than when they moved in opposite directions. Both effects were largest when the two patterns were presented simultaneously. In Experiment 3, the nontarget location was the contralateral hand. In this case, performance was not affected by the presentation of the nontarget. Combined, the results suggest that movement information is processed across adjacent fingers even when subjects are explicitly instructed to attend only to one finger. Subjects do appear to be able to restrict attention to a single hand.     

Identification of scanned and static tactile patterns

Most of the studies in which the interactions between target and nontarget spatial patterns have been examined have tested patterns that are generated statically. Static patterns are those in which all the elements of the pattern are presented at the same time and at a fixed location on the skin; however, most tactile information comes to the skin by means of patterns' being scanned across the surface of the skin. In the present study, the interactions between target and nontarget patterns were measured for patterns generated in both the static and the scanned modes. Nontarget patterns often interfere with the perception of target patterns. Using patterns generated in the static mode, previous studies have identified two factors that produce interference in pattern identification: response competition and masking. Masking, in turn, appears to be the result of temporal integration of the target and nontarget patterns, as well as the displacement of target features. In the present study, these factors were examined for patterns generated in both static and scanned modes. Regardless of the mode in which the patterns were generated, similar functions were obtained relating identification performance to the temporal separation between the target and the nontarget patterns. Although statically generated patterns are more easily identified than scanned patterns, particularly at brief durations, mechanisms such as response competition, temporal integration, and the displacement of target features appear to be factors that affect scanned patterns to nearly the same degree as static patterns.     

Perceptual grouping in pigeons

Animal studies reveal that many species perceive partially occluded objects in the same way as do humans. Pigeons have been a notable exception. We re-investigated this anomaly of pigeon perception using a different approach from previous studies. With our method, we show that pigeons perceive occluded objects in the same manner as do other species. In addition, we report that pigeons can recognize perceptually transparent surfaces when the effect is induced by the same perceptual mechanisms as occlusion. These results give behavioral evidence that the perception of both occlusion and transparency is a common visual function shared by pigeons and humans, despite the structural differences between their visual systems.     

Asymmetric priming effects in visual processing of occlusion patterns

In three experiments, we examined the effect of temporal context in amodal completion of partly occluded nontarget figures. In a primed same-different task, test pairs were preceded by a sequence of two primes, one of which was a single, the other a composite figure. Single figures reappeared in the composite ones, which also contained a square that could be viewed, alternatively, as an occluder or as yielding a mosaic fit to the other shape. To measure context influences between single and composite figures, both of which were nontargets, we studied their combined effect as primes on the test pairs of the same-different task, expecting that congruency between both primes should lead to a superadditive priming effect on the task. We found that single figures presented first provided facilitatory context for local and global occlusion as well as for mosaic interpretations of subsequently presented composite figures. These effects occurred only when the composite figure was presented briefly (50 msec). No superadditive facilitation occurred when composite figures were presented first and single figures followed them. The restriction of the effect to short presentations and its temporal asymmetry were taken as evidence that prior context biases possible occlusion interpretations during the process of completion, rather than afterward.     

Perceptual processing of adjacent and nonadjacent tactile nontargets.

Previous research has shown that subjects appear unable to restrict processing to a single finger and ignore a stimulus presented to an adjacent finger. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that, at least for moving stimuli, an adjacent nontarget is fully processed to the level of incipient response activation. The present study replicated and expanded upon these original findings. The results of Experiment 1 showed that an equally large response-competition effect occurred when the nontarget was presented to adjacent and nonadjacent fingers (on the same hand). The results of Experiment 2 showed that the effects observed in Experiment 1 (and in previous studies) were also obtained with stationary stimuli. Although small, there was some indication in the results of Experiment 2 that interference may dissipate more rapidly with distance with stationary stimuli. An additional finding was that interference effects were observed in both experiments with temporal separations between the target and nontarget of up to 100 msec. In Experiment 3, target and nontarget stimuli were presented to opposite hands. Although reduced, interference was still evident with target and nontarget stimuli presented to opposite hands. Varying the physical distance between hands did not produce any change in the amount of interference. The results suggest that the focus of attention on the skin extends nearly undiminished across the fingers of one hand and is not dependent upon the physical distance between sites of stimulation.     

Perceptual processing of adjacent and nonadjacent tactile nontargets

Previous research has shown that subjects appear unable to restrict processing to a single finger and ignore a stimulus presented to an adjacent finger. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that, at least for moving stimuli, an adjacent nontarget is fully processed to the level of incipient response activation. The present study replicated and expanded upon these original findings. The results of Experiment 1 showed that an equally large response-competition effect occurred when the nontarget was presented to adjacent and nonadjacent fingers4on the same hand). The results of Experiment 2 showed that the effects observed in Experiment 1 (and in previous studies) were also obtained with stationary stimuli. Although small, there was some indication in the results of Experiment 2 that interference may dissipate more rapidly with distance with stationary stimuli. An additional finding was that interference effects were observed in both experiments with temporal separations between the target and nontarget of up to 100 msec. In Experiment 3, target and nontarget stimuli were presented to opposite hands. Although reduced, interference was still evident with target and nontarget stimuli presented to opposite hands. Varying the physical distance between hands did not produce any change in the amount of interference. The results suggest that the focus of attention on the skin extends nearly undiminished across the fingers of one hand and is not dependent upon the physical distance between sites of stimulation.     

Occluded motion alters event perception

We employed audiovisual stream/bounce displays, in which two moving objects with crossing trajectories are more likely to be perceived as bouncing off, rather than streaming through, each other when a brief sound is presented at the coincidence of the two objects. However, Kawachi and Gyoba (Perception 35:1289–1294, 2006b) reported that the presence of an additional moving object near the two objects altered the perception of a bouncing event to that of a streaming event. In this study, we extended this finding and examined whether alteration of the event perception could be induced by the visual context, such as by occluded object motion near the stream/bounce display. The results demonstrated that even when the sound was presented, the continuous occluded motion strongly biased observers’ percepts toward the streaming percept during a short occlusion interval (approximately 100 ms). In contrast, when the continuous occluded motion was disrupted by introducing a spatiotemporal gap in the motion trajectory or by removing occlusion cues such as deletion/accretion, the bias toward the streaming percept declined. Thus, we suggest that a representation of object motion generated under a limited occlusion interval interferes with audiovisual event perception.     

Interactions between coincident and orthogonal cues to texture boundaries

Arrays with horizontal or vertical texture boundaries formed by element orientation and length cues were displayed, and the texture boundary formed by one cue was specified as the target. The boundaries formed by the two cues were coincident on some trials and orthogonal on others. Observers' accuracy in reporting the orientation of the target boundary was improved by a coincident nontarget boundary and was worsened by an orthogonal one. Conditional mutual information measures are used to show how effects due to contextual modulation can be distinguished from effects due to additive combination of the cues. The results of five experiments are interpreted as evidence that the transmission of information about specific texture boundary cues is modulated by task context but not by a coincident or orthogonal boundary in another cue. We therefore distinguish between the effects of "context," as shown by the effects of any variable not called the target, and "modulatory contextual effects," as shown by the effects of one variable on the transmission of information specifically about another.     

Response competition: A major source of interference in a tactile identification task

Two experiments investigated the ability of subjects to identify a moving, tactile stimulus. In both experiments, the subjects were presented with a target to their left index fingerpad and a nontarget (also moving) to their left middle fingerpad. Subjects were instructed to attend only to the target location and to respond “1” if the stimulus moved either to the left or up the finger, and to respond “2” if the stimulus moved either right or down the finger. The results showed that accuracy was better and reaction times were faster when the target and nontarget moved in the same direction than when they moved in different directions. When the target and nontarget moved in different directions, accuracy was significantly better and reaction times were significantly faster when the two stimuli had the same assigned response than when they had different responses. The results provide support for the conclusion that movement information is processed across adjacent fingers to the level of incipient response activation, even when subjects attempt to focus their attention on one location on the skin.