Unmasking the Perky effect: Spatial extent of image interference on visual acuity

We have previously argued that visual mental images are not substitutable for visual percepts, because the interfering effects of visual stimuli such as line maskers on visual targets differ markedly in their properties from the interfering effects of visual images (the ‘Perky effect’). Imagery inte...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Adam eReeves, Catherine eLemley
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2012-08-01
Series:Frontiers in Psychology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00296/full
id doaj-d79f8d8cc6e048c0b939c58b84433d12
record_format Article
spelling doaj-d79f8d8cc6e048c0b939c58b84433d122020-11-24T22:35:58ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782012-08-01310.3389/fpsyg.2012.0029629242Unmasking the Perky effect: Spatial extent of image interference on visual acuityAdam eReeves0Catherine eLemley1Northeastern UniversityElizabethtown CollegeWe have previously argued that visual mental images are not substitutable for visual percepts, because the interfering effects of visual stimuli such as line maskers on visual targets differ markedly in their properties from the interfering effects of visual images (the ‘Perky effect’). Imagery interference occurs over a much wider temporal and spatial extent than masking, and unlike masking, image interference is insensitive to relative orientation. The lack of substitutability is theoretically interesting because the Perky effect can be compared meaningfully to real-line masking in that both types of interference are visual, not due to optical factors (accommodative blur or poor fixation) or to high-level factors (attentional distraction, demand characteristics, or effects of uncertainty). In this report, however, we question our earlier position that spatial extents of interference are markedly different: when images and real lines are matched in contrast, which was not done previously, their interference effects have very similar spatial extents. These data add weight to the view that spatial properties of images and percepts are similar in respect to extent. Along with the wider temporal extent and the insensitivity to orientation, the new results remain compatible with our older hypothesis that to create a clear mental image in a region of visual space, incoming signals from the eye must be suppressed (Craver-Lemley & Reeves, 1992). We have pursued this idea in this report using ‘unmasking’, in which adding elements to the visual image in the region beyond the zone of suppression reduces the Perky effect.http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00296/fullinterferenceprotectionFeature integrationcontrast matchingMental ImageryPerky effect
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Adam eReeves
Catherine eLemley
spellingShingle Adam eReeves
Catherine eLemley
Unmasking the Perky effect: Spatial extent of image interference on visual acuity
Frontiers in Psychology
interference
protection
Feature integration
contrast matching
Mental Imagery
Perky effect
author_facet Adam eReeves
Catherine eLemley
author_sort Adam eReeves
title Unmasking the Perky effect: Spatial extent of image interference on visual acuity
title_short Unmasking the Perky effect: Spatial extent of image interference on visual acuity
title_full Unmasking the Perky effect: Spatial extent of image interference on visual acuity
title_fullStr Unmasking the Perky effect: Spatial extent of image interference on visual acuity
title_full_unstemmed Unmasking the Perky effect: Spatial extent of image interference on visual acuity
title_sort unmasking the perky effect: spatial extent of image interference on visual acuity
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Psychology
issn 1664-1078
publishDate 2012-08-01
description We have previously argued that visual mental images are not substitutable for visual percepts, because the interfering effects of visual stimuli such as line maskers on visual targets differ markedly in their properties from the interfering effects of visual images (the ‘Perky effect’). Imagery interference occurs over a much wider temporal and spatial extent than masking, and unlike masking, image interference is insensitive to relative orientation. The lack of substitutability is theoretically interesting because the Perky effect can be compared meaningfully to real-line masking in that both types of interference are visual, not due to optical factors (accommodative blur or poor fixation) or to high-level factors (attentional distraction, demand characteristics, or effects of uncertainty). In this report, however, we question our earlier position that spatial extents of interference are markedly different: when images and real lines are matched in contrast, which was not done previously, their interference effects have very similar spatial extents. These data add weight to the view that spatial properties of images and percepts are similar in respect to extent. Along with the wider temporal extent and the insensitivity to orientation, the new results remain compatible with our older hypothesis that to create a clear mental image in a region of visual space, incoming signals from the eye must be suppressed (Craver-Lemley & Reeves, 1992). We have pursued this idea in this report using ‘unmasking’, in which adding elements to the visual image in the region beyond the zone of suppression reduces the Perky effect.
topic interference
protection
Feature integration
contrast matching
Mental Imagery
Perky effect
url http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00296/full
work_keys_str_mv AT adamereeves unmaskingtheperkyeffectspatialextentofimageinterferenceonvisualacuity
AT catherineelemley unmaskingtheperkyeffectspatialextentofimageinterferenceonvisualacuity
_version_ 1725721861720899584