Predictive validity of a Rashevsky-Landahl neural net: Test of a model of masking for form

Metacontrast as Measured under a Signal Detection Model

Metacontrast is assessed both by percent accuracy and by the dichotomous sensitivity and criterion measures of a signal-detection model in a forced-choice detection task. The results showed a monotonic increase in sensitivity with increasing mask delay, and an abrupt shift of subjects' response criterion at an 80 ms interstimulus interval. The results are discussed in terms of the interpretational advantages of a signal-detection approach to metacontrast investigation.

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.

Intergration and interruption in the masking of form by form

Paris of geometric forms of equal area were presented, one form after another, with interstimulus intervals t ranging from 0 to 250 ms. The subject's task in experiment 1 was to recognise both stimuli. Identification of the form presented first (backward masking) across all values of t was of a nonmonotonic nature, with greatest impairment at values of t from 30 to 60 ms. Identification of the second form presented (forward masking) increased monotonically with increasing t. Different forms were recognised with different effectiveness across all values of t where masking took place. The results are interpreted on the basis of a multiple-stage processing model which assumes interaction between stimuli at different levels at different values of t. In experiment 2 the subject's task was to detect the presence or absence of a predesignated form. This condition yielded monotonic functions for both backward and forward masking. An explanation in terms of attention-dependent masking is given.