Limits...
Visual similarity in masking and priming: The critical role of task relevance.

Enns JT, Oriet C - Adv Cogn Psychol (2008)

Bottom Line: (2) Are similarity effects in both tasks governed by the extent of feature overlap in the images or only by task-relevant features?Results showed that similarity reduced the visibility of the target in the masking task and increased response speed in the priming task, pointing to a double-dissociation between the two tasks.These findings are interpreted within the framework of a reentrant theory of visual perception.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: University of British Columbia.

ABSTRACT
Cognitive scientists use rapid image sequences to study both the emergence of conscious perception (visual masking) and the unconscious processes involved in response preparation (masked priming). The present study asked two questions: (1) Does image similarity influence masking and priming in the same way? (2) Are similarity effects in both tasks governed by the extent of feature overlap in the images or only by task-relevant features? Participants in Experiment 1 classified human faces using a single dimension even though the faces varied in three dimensions (emotion, race, sex). Abstract geometric shapes and colors were tested in the same way in Experiment 2. Results showed that similarity reduced the visibility of the target in the masking task and increased response speed in the priming task, pointing to a double-dissociation between the two tasks. Results also showed that only task-relevant (not objective) similarity influenced masking and priming, implying that both tasks are influenced from the beginning by intentions of the participant. These findings are interpreted within the framework of a reentrant theory of visual perception. They imply that intentions can influence object formation prior to the separation of vision for perception and vision for action.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Mean correct RT in the mask face classification task. Feature match								and feature mismatch refers to the relation between the prime and								the mask faces. Relevant features are those used explicitly by the								participant to classify the faces; irrelevant features are those								that vary to the same degree but are not the basis for the								classification. Error bar represents one standard error of the mean								(SE).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2864988&req=5

Figure 2: Mean correct RT in the mask face classification task. Feature match and feature mismatch refers to the relation between the prime and the mask faces. Relevant features are those used explicitly by the participant to classify the faces; irrelevant features are those that vary to the same degree but are not the basis for the classification. Error bar represents one standard error of the mean (SE).

Mentions: Participants were very accurate overall (mean accuracy exceeded 95% in each group) and mean correct response time (RT) in milliseconds (ms) is shown in Figure 2. The left hand column of this figure shows RT when features of the prime and mask are matching or mismatching on the relevant features of the task; the right hand column shows RT when prime and mask are matching or mismatching on irrelevant features.


Visual similarity in masking and priming: The critical role of task relevance.

Enns JT, Oriet C - Adv Cogn Psychol (2008)

Mean correct RT in the mask face classification task. Feature match								and feature mismatch refers to the relation between the prime and								the mask faces. Relevant features are those used explicitly by the								participant to classify the faces; irrelevant features are those								that vary to the same degree but are not the basis for the								classification. Error bar represents one standard error of the mean								(SE).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2864988&req=5

Figure 2: Mean correct RT in the mask face classification task. Feature match and feature mismatch refers to the relation between the prime and the mask faces. Relevant features are those used explicitly by the participant to classify the faces; irrelevant features are those that vary to the same degree but are not the basis for the classification. Error bar represents one standard error of the mean (SE).
Mentions: Participants were very accurate overall (mean accuracy exceeded 95% in each group) and mean correct response time (RT) in milliseconds (ms) is shown in Figure 2. The left hand column of this figure shows RT when features of the prime and mask are matching or mismatching on the relevant features of the task; the right hand column shows RT when prime and mask are matching or mismatching on irrelevant features.

Bottom Line: (2) Are similarity effects in both tasks governed by the extent of feature overlap in the images or only by task-relevant features?Results showed that similarity reduced the visibility of the target in the masking task and increased response speed in the priming task, pointing to a double-dissociation between the two tasks.These findings are interpreted within the framework of a reentrant theory of visual perception.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: University of British Columbia.

ABSTRACT
Cognitive scientists use rapid image sequences to study both the emergence of conscious perception (visual masking) and the unconscious processes involved in response preparation (masked priming). The present study asked two questions: (1) Does image similarity influence masking and priming in the same way? (2) Are similarity effects in both tasks governed by the extent of feature overlap in the images or only by task-relevant features? Participants in Experiment 1 classified human faces using a single dimension even though the faces varied in three dimensions (emotion, race, sex). Abstract geometric shapes and colors were tested in the same way in Experiment 2. Results showed that similarity reduced the visibility of the target in the masking task and increased response speed in the priming task, pointing to a double-dissociation between the two tasks. Results also showed that only task-relevant (not objective) similarity influenced masking and priming, implying that both tasks are influenced from the beginning by intentions of the participant. These findings are interpreted within the framework of a reentrant theory of visual perception. They imply that intentions can influence object formation prior to the separation of vision for perception and vision for action.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus