Metacontrast U-Shaped Functions Derive from Two Monotonic Processes
- 1 August 1982
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Perception
- Vol. 11 (4) , 415-426
- https://doi.org/10.1068/p110415
Abstract
Different underlying processes account for the descending and ascending portions of the metacontrast U-shaped function obtained in the flanking-masks paradigm. One or another process is dominant on each trial. Each process is monotonic with stimulus onset asynchrony in the region in which it can be measured. The two processes may be isolated by asking the subject to report on each trial not only target visibility but also whether target and mask appear simultaneous or not. Standard U-shaped functions could be obtained only as an artifact of averaging across these different types of trials.Keywords
This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- Does Integration Produce Masking or Protect from it?Perception, 1981
- Metacontrast investigations of sustained–transient channel inhibitory interactions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1981
- Perceptual delay: A consequence of metacontrast and apparent motion.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1980
- Decrease in Metacontrast Masking following Adaptation to FlickerPerception, 1979
- The two-transient (masking) paradigm.Psychological Review, 1975
- Backward and forward masking in the perception of cutaneous stimuliPerception & Psychophysics, 1973
- Apparent movement and metacontrast: A note on Kahneman’s formulationPerception & Psychophysics, 1969
- A Rashevsky-Landahl neural net: Simulation of metacontrast.Psychological Review, 1968
- An onset-onset law for one case of apparent motion and metacontrastPerception & Psychophysics, 1967
- MetacontrastJournal of the Optical Society of America, 1953