A Dominant-Subordinate Unit-Against-Unit Theory of Decreases in Visibility

Abstract

When simultaneous stimuli or stimuli in metacontrast and related research are perceived (recognized, apprehended) as two different phenomenal groups (wholes, things), the visibility of the group with less intense, smaller, no-onsetting, terminating, and briefer features decreases. This decrease also occurs when one of two groups with equally intense, etc. features is made less visible through masking. Therefore, the relative visibility of two groups predicts a decrease in the visibility of one of them better than does their relative intensity, etc. Further, (1) the visibility of all the parts (perceived features, attributes) of both groups is similarly affected, so each group functions as one entity and (2) decreases in visibility are eliminated when stimuli produce only one group. The theory: a neural unit underlies the perception of one group and its parts, and two such units underlie the perception of two groups and their parts (one unit for each group). In addition, the unit for a dominant (high visibility) group inhibits the unit for a subordinate (low visibility) group, thereby decreasing the visibility of the subordinate group. Also, when stimuli produce only one group (hence one unit), unit-against-unit inhibition and hence a decrease in visibility is precluded.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Blakemore

Campbell

F. W.

(1969) On the existence of neurons in the human visual system selectively sensitive to the orientation and size of retinal images. Journal of Physiology, 203, 237–260.

Breitmeyer

B. G.

(1984) Visual masking: An integrative approach. New York: Oxford Univer. Press.

Breitmeyer

B. G.

Ganz

(1976) Implications of sustained and transient channels for theories of visual pattern masking, saccadic suppression, and information processing. Psychological Review, 83, 1–36.

Cohene

L. S.

Bechtoldt

H. P.

(1974) Visual recognition as a function of stimulus offset asynchrony and duration. Perception & Psychophysics, 15, 221–226.

Cohene

L. S.

Bechtoldt

H. P.

(1975) Visual recognition of dot-pattern bigrams: An extension and replication. American Journal of Psychology, 88, 187–199.

DiLollo

(1980) Temporal integration in visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 75–97.

Dixon

DiLollo

(1992) Beyond visible persistence: An alternative account of temporal integration and segregation in visual processing. (Unpublished manuscript)

Eriksen

C. W.

Collins

J. F.

(1967) Some temporal characteristics of visual pattern perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 476–484.

Fehrer

Smith

(1962) Effect of luminance ratio on masking. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 14, 243–253.

10.

King

D. L.

(1988) Assimilation is due to one perceived whole and contrast is due to two perceived wholes. New Ideas in Psychology, 6, 301–305.

11.

King

D. L.

(1990a) Gestalts are more closely associated with performance on a discrimination task than are component stimuli. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 37–52.

12.

King

D. L.

(1990b) A large rectangle delays the perception of a separate small rectangle. Perception & Psychophysics, 47, 369–378.

13.

King

D. L.

Hicks

Brown

P. D.

(in press) Context-produced increase in visibility. Psychological Research.

14.

King

D. L.

Thomas

(in press) Two effects of context on the presence/absence of connecting segments. Perception & Psychophysics.

15.

Kinsbourne

Warrington

E. K.

(1962) The effect of an after-coming random pattern on the perception of brief visual stimuli. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 223–234.

16.

Kolers

P. A.

(1962) Intensity and contour effects in visual masking. Vision Research 2, 277–294.

17.

Loftus

G. R.

Hanna

A. M.

(1989) The phenomenology of spatial integration: Data and models. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 363–397.

18.

Petry

(1978) Perceptual changes during metacontrast. Vision Research, 18, 1337–1341.

19.

Schiller

P. H.

Smith

M. C.

(1966) Detection in metacontrast. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 32–39.

20.

Schultz

D. W.

Eriksen

C. W.

(1976) Stimulus size and acuity in information processing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 12, 397–399.

21.

Sperling

(1963) A model for visual memory tasks. Human Factors, 5, 19–31.

22.

Todd

J. T.

Van Gelder

(1979) Implications of a transient-sustained dichotomy for the measurement of human performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 625–638.

23.

Turvey

M. T.

(1973) On peripheral and central processing in vision: Inferences from an information-processing analysis of masking with patterned stimuli. Psychological Review, 80, 1–52.

24.

Yantis

Jonides

(1990) Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Voluntary versus automatic allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 121–134.