Abstract
A central bar presented in counterphase with two flanking bars creates the perception of only two bars, instead of three, flickering (standing wave of invisibility illusion). Current explanations of this illusion highlight the importance of local interactions between the central bar and the flankers as a reason for the invisibility of the central bar. In three experiments, we show that the reduction in visibility of the central bar occurs even when the flankers are spatially separated from the central bar. Thus local mechanisms—low-level lateral inhibition or border-ownership competition—do not suffice to account for the decreased visibility. Furthermore, the reduced visibility of the central bar is accompanied by the perception of the flankers in apparent motion at all separations. We suggest an account of the standing wave phenomenon in terms of object updating: The representation of the central bar is updated with the representation of the flankers leaving the perception of just the flankers moving across space. The stimuli for the key conditions from this study, in QuickTime format, may be down loaded from http://app.psychonomic-journals.org/content/supplemental.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bischof, W. F., & Di Lollo, V. (1995). Motion and metacontrast with simultaneous onset of stimuli. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 12, 1623–1636.
Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.
Breitmeyer, B. G., & Ganz, L. (1976). Implications of sustained and transient channels for theories of visual pattern masking, saccadic suppression, and information processing. Psychological Review, 83, 1–36.
Breitmeyer, B. G., & Horman, K. (1981). On the role of stroboscopic motion in metacontrast. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 17, 29–32.
Breitmeyer, B. G., & Öğmen, H. (2000). Recent models and findings in visual backward masking: A comparison, review, and update. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1572–1595.
Breitmeyer, B. G., & Öğmen, H. (2006). Visual masking: Time slices through conscious and unconscious vision. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burr, D. C. (1984). Summation of target and mask metacontrast stimuli. Perception, 13, 183–192.
Didner, R., & Sperling, G. (1980). Perceptual delay: A consequence of metacontrast and apparent motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 6, 235–243.
Di Lollo, V., Bischof, W. F., & Dixon, P. (1993). Stimulus onset asynchrony is not necessary for motion perception or metacontrast masking. Psychological Science, 4, 260–263.
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.
Duangudom, V., Francis, G., & Herzog, M. H. (2007). What is the strength of a mask in visual metacontrast masking? Journal of Vision, 7(1, Art. 7), 1–10. doi:10.1167/7.1.7
Enns, J. T. (2002). Visual binding in the standing wave illusion. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 489–496.
Enns, J. T., & Di Lollo, V. (1997). Object substitution: A new form of masking in unattended visual locations. Psychological Science, 8, 135–139.
Enns, J. T., Lleras, A., & Moore, C. M. (2008). The contribution of object updating to perceptual continuity and scene stability in human vision. In R. Nihjawan (Ed.), Issues of space and time in perception and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fehrer, E. (1966). Effect of stimulus similarity on retroactive masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 612–615.
Francis, G. (1997). Cortical dynamics of lateral inhibition: Metacontrast masking. Psychological Review, 104, 572–594.
Herzog, M. H., Fahle, M., & Koch, C. (2001). Spatial aspects of object formation revealed by a new illusion, shine-through. Vision Research, 41, 2325–2335.
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.
Kahneman, D. (1967). An onset-onset law for one case of apparent motion and metacontrast. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 577–584.
Kobatake, E., & Tanaka, K. (1994). Neuronal selectivities to complex object features in the ventral visual pathway of the macaque cerebral cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 71, 856–867.
Kolers, P. A. (1972). Aspects of motion perception. New York: Pergamon.
Kolers, P. A., & Pomerantz, J. R. (1971). Figural change in apparent motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 87, 99–108.
Korte, A. (1915). Kinematoskopische Untersuchungen. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 72, 194–296.
Lleras, A., & Moore, C. M. (2003). When the target becomes the mask: Using apparent motion to isolate the object-level component of object substitution masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 106–120.
Macknik, S. L. (2006). Visual masking approaches to visual awareness. Progress in Brain Research, 155, 177–215.
Macknik, S. L., & Livingstone, M. S. (1998). Neuronal correlates of visibility and invisibility in the primate visual system. Nature Neuroscience, 1, 144–149.
Macknik, S. L., & Martinez-Conde, S. (2004a). Dichoptic visual masking reveals that early binocular neurons exhibit weak interocular suppression: Implications for binocular vision and visual awareness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1049–1059.
Macknik, S. L., & Martinez-Conde, S. (2004b). The spatial and temporal effects of lateral inhibitory networks and their relevance to the visibility of spatiotemporal edges. Neurocomputing, 58–60, 775–782.
Macknik, S. L., & Martinez-Conde, S. (2007). The role of feedback in visual masking and visual processing. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 125–152.
Macknik, S. L., Martinez-Conde, S., & Haglund, M. M. (2000). The role of spatiotemporal edges in visibility and visual masking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97, 7556–7560.
Moore, C. M., & Enns, J. T. (2004). Substitution masking and the flashlag effect. Psychological Science, 15, 866–871.
Moore, C. M., & Lleras, A. (2005). On the role of object representations in substitution masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 1171–1180.
Moore, C. M., Mordkoff, J. T., & Enns, J. T. (2007). The path of least persistence: Object status mediates visual updating. Vision Research, 47, 1624–1630.
Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442.
Pilling, M., & Gellatly, A. (2009). Target visibility in the standing wave illusion: Is mask-target shape similarity important? Perception, 38, 5–16.
Ramachandran, V. S., & Cobb, S. (1995). Visual attention modulates metacontrast masking. Nature, 373, 66–68.
Reichardt, W. (1961). Autocorrelation, a principle for the evaluation of sensory information by the central nervous system. In W. A. Rosenblith (Ed.), Sensory communication (pp. 303–317). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schiller, P. H., & Smith, M. C. (1966). Detection in metacontrast. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 32–39.
Stoper, A. E., & Banffy, S. (1977). Relation of split apparent motion to metacontrast. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 3, 258–277.
Weisstein, N. (1972). Metacontrast. In D. Jameson & L. M. Hurvich (Eds.), Handbook of sensory physiology (Vol. III/4, pp. 233–272). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Weisstein, N., & Growney, R. L. (1969). Apparent movement and metacontrast: A note on Kahneman’s formulation. Perception & Psychophysics, 5, 321–328.
Werner, H. (1935). Studies of contour: I. Qualitative analyses. American Journal of Psychology, 47, 40–64.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work has been supported by NSF Grant BCS-0818536 to C.M.M.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hein, E., Moore, C.M. Unmasking the standing wave of invisibility: An account in terms of object-mediated representational updating. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 72, 398–408 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.2.398
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.2.398