Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
H. Deubel (2008)
The time course of presaccadic attention shiftsPsychological Research, 72
C. Eriksen, J. Hoffman (1973)
The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual displaysPerception & Psychophysics, 14
D. LaBerge, V. Brown, M. Carter, David Bash, A. Hartley (1991)
Reducing the effects of adjacent distractors by narrowing attention.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 17 1
T. Bachmann (2008)
Binding binding: Departure points for a different version of the perceptual retouch theoryAdvances in Cognitive Psychology, 3
W. Neill, Keith Hutchison, D. Graves (2002)
Masking by object substitution: dissociation of masking and cuing effects.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 28 3
A. Treisman, Stephen Gormican (1988)
Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries.Psychological review, 95 1
J. Bullier (2001)
Integrated model of visual processingBrain Research Reviews, 36
I. Luiga, T. Bachmann (2007)
Different effects of the two types of spatial pre-cueing: what precisely is “attention” in Di Lollo’s and Enns’ substitution masking theory?Psychological Research, 71
M. Corbetta, Aaron Tansy, Christine Stanley, S. Astafiev, A. Snyder, G. Shulman (2005)
A functional MRI study of preparatory signals for spatial location and objectsNeuropsychologia, 43
Matthew Tata (2002)
Attend to it now or lose it forever: Selective attention, metacontrast masking, and object substitutionPerception & Psychophysics, 64
A. Heijden, E. Eerland (1973)
The Effect of Cueing in a Visual Signal Detection TaskQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25
S. Hochstein, M. Ahissar (2002)
View from the Top Hierarchies and Reverse Hierarchies in the Visual SystemNeuron, 36
J. Duncan, G. Humphreys (1989)
Visual search and stimulus similarity.Psychological review, 96 3
Matthew Tata, D. Giaschi (2004)
Warning: Attending to a mask may be hazardous to your perceptionPsychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11
J. Enns (2004)
Object substitution and its relation to other forms of visual maskingVision Research, 44
J. Enns, V. Lollo (1997)
Object Substitution: A New Form of Masking in Unattended Visual LocationsPsychological Science, 8
Geoffrey Woodman, S. Luck (2003)
Dissociations Among Attention, Perception, and Awareness During Object-Substitution MaskingPsychological Science, 14
S. Grossberg, Massimiliano Versace (2008)
Spikes, synchrony, and attentive learning by laminar thalamocortical circuitsBrain Research, 1218
M. Cheal, D. Lyon (1991)
Central and Peripheral Precuing of Forced-Choice DiscriminationQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43
A. Treisman, G. Gelade (1980)
A feature-integration theory of attentionCognitive Psychology, 12
V. Lamme, P. Roelfsema (2000)
The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processingTrends in Neurosciences, 23
M. Bar (2003)
A Cortical Mechanism for Triggering Top-Down Facilitation in Visual Object RecognitionJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15
T. Kahan, Katherine Mathis (2002)
Gestalt grouping and common onset maskingPerception & Psychophysics, 64
Yuhong Jiang, M. Chun (2001)
The spatial gradient of visual masking by object substitutionVision Research, 41
V. Lollo, J. Enns, Ronald Rensink (2000)
Competition for consciousness among visual events: the psychophysics of reentrant visual processes.Journal of experimental psychology. General, 129 4
H. Muller, P. Rabbitt, Age (1989)
Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: time course of activation and resistance to interruption.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 15 2
Stephen Lim, F. Chua (2008)
Object substitution masking: when does mask preview work?Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 34 5
Object substitution masking (OSM) is a form of visual masking in which a briefly presented target surrounded by four small dots is masked by the continuing presence of the four dots after target offset. A major parameter in the prediction of OSM is the time required for attention to be directed to the target following its onset. Object substitution theory (Di Lollo et al. in J Exp Psychol Gen 129:481–507, 2000) predicts that the sooner attention can be focused at the target’s location, the less masking will ensue. However, recently Luiga and Bachmann (Psychol Res 71:634–640, 2007) presented evidence that precueing of attention to the target location prior to target-plus-mask onset by means of a central (endogenous) arrow cue does not reduce OSM. When attention was cued exogenously, OSM was attenuated. Based on these results, Luiga and Bachmann argued that object substitution theory should be adapted by differentiating the ways of directing attention to the target location. The goal of the present study was to further examine the dissociation between the effects of endogenous and exogenous precueing on OSM. Contrary to Luiga and Bachmann, our results show that prior shifts of attention to the target location initiated by both exogenous and endogenous cues reduce OSM as predicted by object substitution theory and its computational model CMOS.
Psychological Research – Springer Journals
Published: Nov 6, 2009
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.