Interaction of stimulus size and retinal eccentricity in metacontrast masking

Metacontrast masking occurs both at the fovea and in the retinal periphery; foveally, the smallest stimulus elicited the strongest masking, whereas peripherally the reverse was the case. An analysis of variance showed a significant size effect, eccentricity effect, and size-eccentricity interaction. As stimulus size increased, the stimulus onset asynchrony of maximum masking shifted to greater values. Both foveal metacontrast and peak shifts contradicted predictions made by the hypothesis that metacontrast is mediated by an interaction of sustained and transient channels in the visual system. The data are consistent, however, with a lateral inhibitory model of metacontrast masking and stimulus coding.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Disappearing Percepts: Evidence for Retention Failure in Metacontrast Masking

Results from a number of paradigms (including change blindness, inattentional blindness, integration over saccades, and backward masking) suggest that most of the visual information we take in is not retained, even for very short periods of time. This has led some to question whether such information is ever really perceived. We examine this issue using a variant of the classic metacontrast stimulus. When a briefly presented disk is followed by a briefly presented ring, observers may report not seeing the disk. Rather they report seeing the ring flicker as if the change in form from disk to ring is not recorded. This effect is highly dependent on the interval between the onset of the disk and the onset of the ring (the “stimulus onset asynchrony” or SOA). The maximum effect is usually found at a critical SOA of about 50 msec. Here we show that the ability of observers to distinguish such a disk/ring pair from a flickering ring is dependent also on how soon after the stimulus they respond. Early responses show a much smaller masking effect than late responses: Near the critical SOA accuracy improves when the observer responds more quickly (the opposite of the standard speed-accuracy trade-off), although at longer and shorter SOAs observers are less accurate on these early responses (a typical speed-accuracy trade-off). We interpret this finding as demonstrating that, at least in the case of metacontrast, retention of form information is disrupted, rather than initial access.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Metacontrast and brightness discrimination

An attempt was made to obtain U-shaped masking functions in two metacontrast experiments. Trained Ss judged whether a square test stimulus (TS) was bright or dim. The TS was presented alone or in conjunction with an adjacent pair of square masking stimuli (MS) whose energy equaled the bright TS. The stimulus onset asynchronies (SOA) rangedfrom 0 to 125 msec. The task minimized the role of apparent movement cues as a reliable basis for judgrnent. Similar studies have employed TS plus MS vs MS alone as the alternatives, allowing apparent movement to be a cue. Brightness accuracy was a U-shaped function of SOA. This finding is consistent with neural-net models (Weisstein, 1968). However, analysis of Ss’ response bias suggested an alternative explanation involving the MS as a comparison stimulus at short SOA. It was concluded that U-shaped masking functions are also consistent with theories based upon independent component processes, e.g., Schurman and Eriksen (1970) and Uttal (1970).     

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.     

The origin of pattern information of an apparently moving object during stroboscopic motion

The differential contribution of the two flashed stimuli to pattern aspects of the appar-ently moving object during stroboscopic motion is examined. It is found that metacontrast masking of one of the stimuli abolishes that stimulus’ influence on pattern completely, while not interfering with motion information of the same stimulus. Thus, good motion still occurs, but the apparently moving object has pattern characteristics of the unmasked stimulus only.     

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.