Literature DB >> 23106303

Attentional gating models of object substitution masking.

Endel Põder.   

Abstract

Di Lollo, Enns, and Rensink (2000) proposed the computational model of object substitution (CMOS) to explain their experimental results with sparse visual maskers. This model supposedly is based on reentrant hypotheses testing in the visual system, and the modeled experiments are believed to demonstrate these reentrant processes in human vision. In this study, I analyze the main assumptions of this model. I argue that CMOS is a version of the attentional gating model and that its relationship with reentrant processing is rather illusory. The fit of this model to the data indicates that reentrant hypotheses testing is not necessary for the explanation of object substitution masking (OSM). Further, the original CMOS cannot predict some important aspects of the experimental data. I test 2 new models incorporating an unselective processing (divided attention) stage; these models are more consistent with data from OSM experiments. My modeling shows that the apparent complexity of OSM can be reduced to a few simple and well-known mechanisms of perception and memory. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23106303     DOI: 10.1037/a0030575

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen        ISSN: 0022-1015


  12 in total

1.  Object-substitution masking degrades the quality of conscious object representations.

Authors:  Geoffrey W Harrison; Jason Rajsic; Daryl E Wilson
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-02

Review 2.  Substituting objects from consciousness: a review of object substitution masking.

Authors:  Stephanie C Goodhew; Jay Pratt; Paul E Dux; Susanne Ferber
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2013-10

Review 3.  Postdiction: its implications on visual awareness, hindsight, and sense of agency.

Authors:  Shinsuke Shimojo
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-03-31

4.  The fastest saccadic responses escape visual masking.

Authors:  Sébastien M Crouzet; Morten Overgaard; Niko A Busch
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-05       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Reentrant processing mediates object substitution masking: comment on Põder (2013).

Authors:  Vincent Di Lollo
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-08-04

6.  The changing picture of object substitution masking: reply to Di Lollo (2014).

Authors:  Endel Põder
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-09-09

7.  Visual crowding illustrates the inadequacy of local vs. global and feedforward vs. feedback distinctions in modeling visual perception.

Authors:  Aaron M Clarke; Michael H Herzog; Gregory Francis
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-10-21

8.  A hidden ambiguity of the term "feedback" in its use as an explanatory mechanism for psychophysical visual phenomena.

Authors:  Talis Bachmann
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-07-22

Review 9.  Visual masking & schizophrenia.

Authors:  Michael H Herzog; Andreas Brand
Journal:  Schizophr Res Cogn       Date:  2015-05-08

10.  Perception of invisible masked objects in early infancy.

Authors:  Yusuke Nakashima; So Kanazawa; Masami K Yamaguchi
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.