How important is lateral masking in visual search?

Five experiments are presented, providing empirical support of the hypothesis that the sensory phenomenon of lateral masking may explain many well-known visual search phenomena that are commonly assumed to be governed by cognitive attentional mechanisms. Experiment I showed that when the same visual arrays are used in visual search and in lateral masking experiments, the factors (1) number of distractors, (2) distractor density, and (3) search type (conjunction vs disjunction) have the same effect on search times as they have on lateral masking scores. Experiment II showed that when the number of distractors and eccentricity is kept constant in a search task, the effect of reducing density (which reduces the lateral masking potential of distractors on the target) is to strongly reduce the disjunction-conjunction difference. In experiment III, the lateral masking potential of distractors on a target was measured with arrays that typically yield asymmetric search times in visual search studies (a Q among Os vs. an O among Qs). The lateral masking scores showed the same asymmetry. Experiment IV was a visual search study with such asymmetric search arrays in which the number of distractors and eccentricity was kept constant, while manipulating density. Reducing density (i.e., reducing lateral masking) produced a strong reduction of the asymmetry effect. Finally in experiment V, we showed that the data from experiment IV cannot be explained due to a difference between a fine and a coarse grain attentional mechanism. Taken together with eye movement data and error scores from experiment II and with similar findings from the literature, these results suggest that the sensory mechanism of lateral masking could well be a very important (if not the main) factor causing many of the well-known effects that are traditionally attributed to higher level cognitive or attentional mechanisms in visual search.

Sources of position-perception error for small isolated targets.

It has often been reported that, in the presence of static reference stimuli, briefly presented visual targets are perceived as being closer to the fixation point than they actually are. The first purpose of the present study was to investigate whether the same phenomenon can be demonstrated in a situation without static reference stimuli. Experiment 1, with position naming as the task, showed that such a central shift is also observed under these conditions. This finding is of importance because it completes an explanation for central near-location errors in the partial-report bar-probe task. The second purpose of the present study was to provide an explanation for these central shifts. For this explanation information about the exact size of the central shift is required. In Exps. 2, 3, and 4, with cursor setting as the task, it was attempted to assess more precisely the size of the central shifts. These experiments revealed that two different factors determine the results in cursor setting tasks; a factor "target position" and a factor "cursor position." Experiment 5 showed that it is the point of fixation, not the fixation point, that serves, at least in part, as the reference point in this type of task. All the findings together allow us to conclude that the target positions are underestimated by about 10%. From vision research it is known that saccadic eye movements, performed for bringing a target in the fovea, also show an undershoot of about 10%. It is therefore concluded that the system in charge of saccadic eye movements also provides the metric in visual space within a single eye fixation.