The influence of metacontrast masking on detection and spatial-choice judgments: an apparent distinction between automatic and attentive response mechanisms.
Several studies of metacontrast masking in the 1960s apparently showed that the latency of simple detection responses was uninfluenced by the phenomenal dimming of the target induced by the mask. More recent studies using more suitable methodologies have clearly shown that such is not the case for situations in which the masking is a monotonically decreasing function of stimulus onset asynchrony. Experiment 1 investigated this issue for the situation in which masking is a U-shaped function of stimulus onset asynchrony. Contrary to the results obtained in monotonic masking situations, simple detection responses were not slowed by the masking. Experiment 2 demonstrated that although detection responses are not slowed in the U-shaped masking situation, spatial-choice judgments are. Experiments 3 and 4 indicated that this masking effect on spatial-choice reaction time is lost relatively rapidly with practice. However, changing the stimulus-response assignments reinstates the effect. The experiments suggest that for the situation in which U-shaped masking functions are obtained, responses that require attention (spatial-choice judgments early in practice or after stimulus-response relationships have been switched) are influenced by the metacontrast-induced phenomenal dimming, whereas responses that are automatic (i.e., detection responses; practiced spatial-choice judgments with consistent stimulus-response mappings) are not.
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology; D002755:Choice Behavior / Q000502:physiology; D004192:Discrimination, Psychological / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D010470:Perceptual Masking / Q000502:physiology*; D011601:Psychophysics; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology*; D013028:Space Perception / Q000502:physiology; D014796:Visual Perception / Q000502:physiology*