Skip to main content

Summation versus suppression in metacontrast masking: On the potential pitfalls of using metacontrast masking to assess perceptual–motor dissociation

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics volume 76, pages 1403–1413 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. Letters in italics refer to the physical stimuli, and plain capitals refer to the corresponding internal random (decision) variables.

  2. It is legitimate to question the statistical power of our analysis to show that masking does not affect RTs, especially given the small number of participants in this study. Statistical power depends on both sample size and effect size: For any nonzero effect size, it is always possible to find a sample size that will reveal statistically significant results. In order to estimate an expected effect size of masking on RTs under the hypothesis that masking affects both perception and motor responses, we used the following reasoning: The contrast manipulation yielded a sensitivity change of 0.69, whereas the masking manipulation yielded a sensitivity change of 0.94. Contrast changed RTs by 13.1 ms. If masking had equivalent effects on sensitivity and RTs, we would expect a masking effect on RTs of 17.85 ms [viz. 13.1 * (0.94/0.69) = 17.85 ms]. Note that 17.85 ms is much larger than the observed effect of contrast on RTs (13.1 ms). Note also that we had enough statistical power to detect this contrast effect of 13.1 ms. It follows that we should also have had enough power to detect an effect of masking on RTs, had there been such an effect.

References

  • Ansorge, U., Becker, S. I., & Breitmeyer, B. (2009). Revisiting the metacontrast dissociation: Comparing sensitivity across different measures and tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 286–309. doi:10.1080/17470210801908492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansorge, U., Breitmeyer, B. G., & Becker, S. I. (2007). Comparing sensitivity across different processing measures under metacontrast masking conditions. Vision Research, 47, 3335–3349. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2007.09.009

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansorge, U., Francis, G., Herzog, M. H., & Oğmen, H. (2007). Visual masking and the dynamics of human perception, cognition, and consciousness: A century of progress, a contemporary synthesis, and future directions. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 1–8. doi:10.2478/v10053-008-0009-0

    PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachmann, T. (1984). The process of perceptual retouch: Nonspecific afferent activation dynamics in explaining visual masking. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 69–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, I. H., Amundson, V. E., & Schurman, D. L. (1973). Metacontrast inferred from reaction time and verbal report: Replication and comments on the Fehrer–Biederman experiment. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100, 195–201.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436. doi:10.1163/156856897X00357

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breitmeyer, B. G. (1984). Visual masking: An integrative approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breitmeyer, B. G., & Ogmen, H. (2000). Recent models and findings in visual backward masking: A comparison, review, and update. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1572–1595. doi:10.3758/BF03212157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso-Leite, P., & Gorea, A. (2009). Comparison of perceptual and motor decisions via confidence judgments and saccade curvature. Journal of Neurophysiology, 101, 2822–2836. doi:10.1152/jn.91269.2008

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso-Leite, P., & Gorea, A. (2010). On the perceptual/motor dissociation: A review of concepts, theory, experimental paradigms and data interpretations. Seeing and Perceiving, 23, 89–151.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso-Leite, P., Gorea, A., & Mamassian, P. (2007). Temporal order judgment and simple reaction times: Evidence for a common processing system. Journal of Vision, 7(6), 11. doi:10.1167/7.6.11

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso-Leite, P., Mamassian, P., & Gorea, A. (2009). Comparison of perceptual and motor latencies via anticipatory and reactive response times. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 82–94. doi:10.3758/APP.71.1.82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Lollo, V., Enns, J. T., & Rensink, R. A. (2000). Competition for consciousness among visual events: The psychophysics of reentrant visual processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 481–507. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.129.4.481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enns, J. T., & Di Lollo, V. (2000). What’s new in visual masking? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 345–352. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01520-5

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehrer, E., & Biederman, I. (1962). A comparison of reaction time and verbal report in the detection of masked stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 126–130.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehrer, E., & Raab, D. (1962). Reaction time to stimuli masked by metacontrast. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 143–147.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, M. H. (2007). Spatial processing and visual backward masking. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 85–92. doi:10.2478/v10053-008-0016-1

    PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, M. H., & Koch, C. (2001). Seeing properties of an invisible object: Feature inheritance and shine-through. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 4271–4275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jannati, A., & Di Lollo, V. (2012). Relative blindsight arises from a criterion confound in metacontrast masking: implications for theories of consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 307–314.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (1968). Method, findings, and theory in studies of visual masking. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 404–425. doi:10.1037/h0026731

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirt, T., & Bachmann, T. (2013). Perceptual retouch theory derived modeling of interactions in the processing of successive visual objects for consciousness: Two-stage synchronization of neuronal oscillators. Consciousness and Cognition, 22, 330–347.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamme, V. A. F., & Roelfsema, P. R. (2000). The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing. Trends in Neurosciences, 23, 571–579. doi:10.1016/S0166-2236(00)01657-X

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, H. C., & Passingham, R. E. (2006). Relative blindsight in normal observers and the neural correlate of visual consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 18763–18768. doi:10.1073/pnas.0607716103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nachmias, J., & Steinman, R. M. (1963). Study of absolute visual detection by the rating-scale method. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 53, 1206–1213.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, O., & Klotz, W. (1994). Motor responses to nonreportable, masked stimuli: Where is the limit of direct parameter specification? In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 123–150). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, O., & Scharlau, I. (2007). Experiments on the Fehrer–Raab effect and the “Weather Station Model” of visual backward masking. Psychological Research, 71, 667–677.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogmen, H., Breitmeyer, B. G., & Melvin, R. (2003). The what and where in visual masking. Vision Research, 43, 1337–1350. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(03)00138-X

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otto, T. U., Oğmen, H., & Herzog, M. H. (2006). The flight path of the phoenix—The visible trace of invisible elements in human vision. Journal of Vision, 6(10), 1079–1086. doi:10.1167/6.10.7

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442. doi:10.1163/156856897X00366

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reingold, E. M., & Merikle, P. M. (1988). Using direct and indirect measures to study perception without awareness. Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 563–575. doi:10.3758/BF03207490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sackur, J. (2013). Two dimensions of visibility revealed by multidimensional scaling of metacontrast. Cognition, 126, 173–180.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharlau, I. (2007). Temporal processes in prime–mask interaction: Assessing perceptual consequences of masked information. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 241–255. doi:10.2478/v10053-008-0028-x

    PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharlau, I., Ansorge, U., & Breitmeyer, B. G. (2006). Trends and styles in visual masking. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 2, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharlau, I., & Neumann, O. (2003). Perceptual latency priming by masked and unmasked stimuli: Evidence for an attentional interpretation. Psychological Research, 67, 184–196. doi:10.1007/s00426-002-0116-3

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiller, P. H., & Smith, M. C. (1966). Detection in metacontrast. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 32–39.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, T., Niehaus, S., & Nagel, A. (2006). Primes and targets in rapid chases: Tracing sequential waves of motor activation. Behavioral Neuroscience, 120, 1005–1016. doi:10.1037/0735-7044.120.5.1005

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, T., & Vorberg, D. (2006). Criteria for unconscious cognition: Three types of dissociation. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 489–504. doi:10.3758/BF03193692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. L., & McCloskey, D. I. (1990). Triggering of preprogrammed movements as reactions to masked stimuli. Journal of Neurophysiology, 63, 439–446.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vorberg, D., Mattler, U., Heinecke, A., Schmidt, T., & Schwarzbach, J. (2003). Different time courses for visual perception and action priming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 6275–6280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waszak, F., Cardoso-Leite, P., & Gorea, A. (2007). Perceptual criterion and motor threshold: A signal detection analysis of the relationship between perception and action. Experimental Brain Research, 182, 179–188. doi:10.1007/s00221-007-0984-2

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waszak, F., & Gorea, A. (2004). A new look on the relation between perceptual and motor responses. Visual Cognition, 11, 947–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author note

We thank Andrei Gorea for discussions that led to the idea of this experiment, and Thomas Otto for helpful comments on the manuscript. P.C.-L. was supported by a Fyssen Foundation postdoctoral fellowship. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC Grant Agreement No. 263067.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

    Pedro Cardoso-Leite

  2. Laboratoire Psychologie de la Perception (UMR 8158), CNRS & Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France

    Florian Waszak

Authors
  1. Pedro Cardoso-Leite
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Florian Waszak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pedro Cardoso-Leite.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cardoso-Leite, P., Waszak, F. Summation versus suppression in metacontrast masking: On the potential pitfalls of using metacontrast masking to assess perceptual–motor dissociation. Atten Percept Psychophys 76, 1403–1413 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0670-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0670-y

Keywords

  • Visual awareness
  • Perception and action
  • Signal detection theory
  • Confidence judgments
  • Reaction times