What’s new in visual masking?
Abstract
A brief display that is clearly visible when shown alone can be rendered invisible by the subsequent presentation of a second visual stimulus. Several recently described backward masking effects are not predicted by current theories of visual masking, including masking by four small dots that surround (but do not touch) a target object and masking by a surrounding object that remains on display after the target object has been turned off. A crucial factor in both of these effects is attention: almost no masking occurs if attention can be rapidly focused on the target, whereas powerful masking ensues if attention directed at the target is delayed. A new theory of visual masking, inspired by developments in neuroscience, can account for these effects, as well as more traditional masking effects. In addition, the new theory sheds light on related research, such as the attentional blink, inattentional blindness and change blindness.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
During masked stimulus presentations, the feedforward bottom-up components of cortical cells' response (the early response from response onset for a period lasting about the stimulus mask) remains essentially unaltered whereas the later response is interrupted.
“Previous physiological studies have shown that during masked stimulus presentations, the feedforward bottom-up components of cortical cells' response (i.e., the early response from response onset for a period lasting about the stimulus mask) remains essentially unaltered whereas the later response is interrupted (see SI Text ) (see also refs. 42, 43, and 44 for recent reviews).”
From A feedforward architecture accounts for rapid categorization (2007) · cites this paper as [42]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 53 · Cited by 684
- Authors
- Enns, J. T., & Di Lollo, V.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Enns, James T.
- ORCID
- Enns, James T.
- Venue
- Trends in Cognitive Sciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2000-09
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 345-352
- ISSN
- 1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2120856708
- Cited by
- 684
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 40
- FWCI
- 1.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Trends in Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- visual masking, backward masking, attention, attentional blink, inattentional blindness, change blindness
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
