Abstract
Three variables—target field luminance, interstimulus interval, and spatial separation of target and mask—were found to have significant effects on backward masking, in accord with predications from a model developed by Purcell, Stewart, & Dember (1968). Quantitative differences between the results of the present and the earlier (1968) study were attributed to a masking-by-flashes effect in the earlier study or, when considered in terms of receptive fields, to the involvement of different-sized receptive fields resulting from the difference in the size of the targets employed in the two studies. Further, the results of the present study provide an estimate of the radius of the inhibitory region for the detection system that is in close accord with such estimates from experiments using quite different procedures.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ALPERN, M. Metacontrast. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1953, 43, 648–657.
BÉKÉSY, G. von Neural inhibitory unite of the eye and skin: Quantitative description of contrast phenomena. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1960, 50, 1060–1070.
COX, S. I., DEMBER, W. N., & SHERRICK, M. F. Effect on backward masking of spatial separation between target and mask contours and of target size. Psychonomic Science, 1969, 17, 205–206.
DEMBER, W. N., & PURCELL, D. G. Recovery of masked visual targets by inhibition of the masking stimulus. Science, 1967, 157, 1335–1336.
FRUMKES, T. E., & STURR, J. F. Spatial and luminance factors determining visual excitability. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1968, 58, 1657–1662.
FRY, G. A. The relation of the configuration of a brightness contrast border to its visibility. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1947, 37, 166–175.
PURCELL, D. G., & DEMBER, W. N. The relation of phenomenal brightness reversal and re-reversal to backward masking and recovery. Perception & Psychophysics, 1968, 3, 290–292.
PURCELL, D. G., & STEWART, A. L. Facilitation of visual backward masking by increasing target duration: A methodological extension. Psychonomic Science, 1969, 17, 360–361.
PURCELL, D. G., STEWART, A. L., & DEMBER, W. N. Spatial effectiveness of the mask: Lateral inhibition in visual backward masking. Perception & Psychophysics, 1968, 4, 344–346.
PURCELL, D. G., STEWART, A. L., & DEMBER, W. N. Backward masking: Facilitation through increased target-field luminance and duration. Psychonomic Science, 1969, 15, 87–88.
ROBINSON, D. N. Disinhibition of visually masked stimuli. Science, 1966, 154, 157–158.
STEWART, A. L., PURCELL, D. G., & DEMBER, W. N. Masking and recovery of target brightness. Proceedings, 76th Annual Convention, APA, 1968, 109–110.
STURR, J. F., & FRUMKES, T. E. Spatial factors in masking with black or white targets. Perception & Psychophysics, 1968, 4, 282–284.
STURR, J. F., FRUMKES, T. E., & VENERUSO, D. M. Spatial determinants of visual masking: Effects of mask size and retinal position. Psychonomic Science, 1965, 3, 327–328.
SWETS, J. A. Signal detection and recognition by human observers. New York: Wiley, 1964.
WEISSTEIN, N., & GROWNEY, R. Apparent movement and metacontrast: A note on Kahneman’s formulation. Perception & Psychophysics, 1969, 5, 321–328.
WESTHEIMER, G. Spatial interaction in the human retina during scotopic vision. Journal of Physiology, 1965, 181, 881–894.
WESTHEIMER, G. Spatial interaction in human cone vision. Journal of Physiology, 1967, 190, 139–154.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Supported by Grant EY 00481-04 from the National Eye Institute. Special thanks to Fanny Montalvo for assistance with computer analysis.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cox, S.I., Dember, W.N. Effects of target-field luminance, interstimulus interval, and target-mask separation on extent of visual backward masking. Psychon Sci 22, 79–80 (1971). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03332503
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03332503