Attend to it now or lose it forever: Selective attention, metacontrast masking, and object substitution

Tata, Matthew S. · 2002 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.3758/bf03194754

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates the role of selective attention in metacontrast masking, a phenomenon where the visibility of a brief target is reduced by a subsequent, non-overlapping mask. While early theories attributed masking to low-level inhibitory contour interactions, previous research suggested that display complexity and attentional states influence masking strength. The author aims to determine whether metacontrast masking is modulated by the observer’s ability to focus attention on the target before the mask appears, extending findings from common-onset masking paradigms to the metacontrast paradigm. The research comprises three experiments manipulating attentional deployment through set size, spatial precuing, and visual search efficiency. In Experiment 1, observers discriminated the orientation of a target Landolt C among distractors (set sizes of 1, 2, 4, or 8) followed by a concentric ring mask at various stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). Experiment 2 utilized a fixed set size of 8 and an SOA of 80 msec, introducing a spatial cue that validly indicated the target location on 12% of trials with varying lead times. Experiment 3 compared masking strength in displays requiring efficient "pop-out" search versus inefficient serial search, ensuring that only the attentional state, not the physical target-mask relationship, varied. The results demonstrate that metacontrast masking is significantly modulated by selective attention. Experiment 1 revealed that masking strength increased with set size; a mask that produced negligible masking for a single item caused profound masking when the target was embedded in a complex display. Experiment 2 showed that valid spatial cues reduced masking strength, particularly with longer cue lead times, whereas invalid cues did not increase masking relative to uncued conditions. Experiment 3 found that masking was eliminated when the target popped out from distractors (efficient search) but remained strong when search was inefficient (serial search). These findings indicate that when attention is successfully focused on the target prior to mask onset, the target representation is consolidated and resistant to suppression. The study concludes that metacontrast masking is not solely a low-level peripheral process but involves higher-order attentional mechanisms. The strength of masking depends on whether the target has been selectively attended before the mask appears. Unattended targets possess impoverished representations that are easily suppressed by masks, while attended targets are consolidated and resistant. This links metacontrast masking to object substitution masking, suggesting that both phenomena rely on the same attentional gating mechanisms. The findings imply that theories of backward masking must account for the interaction between attentional selection and visual suppression, rather than relying exclusively on local contour interactions.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• inattentional change blindness
• visual search
• attention selective divided