Voluntary attention to one of two static objects in the peripheral field of one eye makes this object more liable to masking by a moving object in the corresponding area of the field of the other eye (Experiment 1).
Positive after images (and probably negative after images) are subject to (binocular) movement masking (Experiment 2).
Movement masking can occur in the field of either eye, but with the displays so far tried the inhibitory influence of a moving object is less in the field of the eye to which it is shown than in the field of the other eye (Experiment 3).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AverbachE.SperlingG. S. (1960). Short term storage of information in vision. 4th London Symposium on Information Theory196.
2.
SmithB. Babington (1961a). An unexpected effect of attention in peripheral vision. Nature189, 776.
3.
SmithB. Babington (1961b). Effect of attention in peripheral vision. Nature191, 732.
4.
BrindleyG. S. (1962). Two new properties of foveal after-images and a photochemical hypothesis to explain them. J. Physiol.164, 168–79.
5.
GrindleyG. C. (1931). Psychological factors in peripheral vision. Med. Res. Council Spec. Rep. Series No. 163. London.
6.
GrindleyG. C.TownsendV. (1965). Binocular masking induced by a moving object. Quart. J. exp. Psychol.17, 97–109.
7.
von HelmholtzH. (1925). 31. Handbuch der Physiologischen OptikSouthallJ. P. C. Vol. 3, 455.
8.
MacKayD. M. (1960). Monocular “rivalry” between stabilised and unstabilised retinal images. Nature185, 834.
