Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Two objects or one? similarity rather than complexity determines objecthood when resolving dynamic input

dc.contributor.authorGoodhew, Stephanie Catherine
dc.contributor.authorEdwards, Mark
dc.contributor.authorBoal, Hannah L.
dc.contributor.authorBell, Jason
dc.date.accessioned2015-02-17T00:18:47Z
dc.date.available2015-02-17T00:18:47Z
dc.date.issued2015-02
dc.description.abstractThe human brain is continuously confronted with dynamic visual input, and from this it must infer whether input belongs to a single versus multiple object identities across time. Object substitution masking (OSM), in which perception of a target stimulus is impaired by a temporally trailing 4-dot mask, reflects a failure to segment the target and mask as discrete objects. According to Bouvier and Treisman (2010), OSM only occurs for targets that require binding multiple separate features (e.g., color and orientation) to be identified. In contrast, a target that represents a unique feature is thought to be impervious to masking. Here, however, we show that a single orientation target (a Gabor) is susceptible to masking with an orientation-discrimination task, but only when the mask is similar in orientation to the target. That is, target-mask similarity, rather than target complexity determines masking. A reexamination of Bouvier and Treisman’s (2010) results show that they can be explained within this target-mask similarity perspective. This means that the similarity of 2 objects determines whether they will be integrated or segmented across time, rather than the complexity of 1 of the objects in isolation.en_AU
dc.description.sponsorshipThe research was supported by an Australian Research Council grant: arc ID:de140101734.en_AU
dc.format9 pagesen_AU
dc.identifier.issn0096-1523
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/12698
dc.publisherAmerican Psychological Associationen_AU
dc.relationhttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/de140101734en_AU
dc.rights© 2015 American Psychological Association. Accepted version may be deposited http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/issn/0096-1523/en_AU
dc.sourceJournal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 41.1 (2015): 102-110en_AU
dc.subjectsegmentationen_AU
dc.subjectobject substitution maskingen_AU
dc.subjectattentionen_AU
dc.subjectfeature bindingen_AU
dc.subjectvisual maskingen_AU
dc.titleTwo objects or one? similarity rather than complexity determines objecthood when resolving dynamic inputen_AU
dc.typeJournal articleen_AU
dcterms.accessRightsOpen Access
local.contributor.affiliationGoodhew, Stephanie Catherine, Research School of Psychology, ANU College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, The Australian National Universityen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationEdwards, Mark, School of Psychology, Research School of Physics & Engineering, The Australian National Unversityen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationBell, Jason, Research School of Psychology, ANU College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, The Australian National Universityen_AU
local.contributor.authoruidu4477319en_AU
local.identifier.doi10.1037/xhp0000022
local.identifier.essn1939-1277en_AU
local.publisher.urlhttp://www.apa.org/en_AU
local.type.statusAccepted Versionen_AU

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Goodhew Two objects or one similarity 2015.pdf
Size:
483.54 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format