English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In Object Substitution Masking (OSM) a mask surrounding, simultaneously onsetting with, and trailing a target leads to a reduction in target perceptibility (Di Lollo et al., 2000). It has been questioned whether this process is due to target substitution or the addition of noise to the percept (Podor, 2012). Two experiments examined this issue using an adjustment task in which a test Landolt C is presented and participants rotate it to match the target Landolt C shown during the trial (typical OSM paradigms use 2-4 alternative forced choice); the dependent measure was the angle of error. In Experiment 1 the effect of a trailing OSM mask (80ms-320ms) is compared against that of adding stimulus noise of varying densities (25%-75%) to the target location. Both manipulations (OSM, stimulus noise) produced a similar change in the distribution of errors compared against a baseline (0ms trailing mask, 0%-noise). The pattern is consistent with both mask manipulations reducing the fidelity of the target percept. In Experiment 2 the OSM and stimulus noise manipulations were varied factorially. Here the two manipulations had combinatorial effects on the error distribution. Implications are discussed regarding the mechanisms of OSM and the consequences of OSM for target perception

38th European Conference on Visual Perception (ECVP) 2015 Liverpool