Cited by 344Visual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFace Recognition and Perception

Masking Disrupts Reentrant Processing in Human Visual Cortex

Open access
Fahrenfort, J. J., Scholte, H. S., Lamme, V. A. F.·2007·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

In masking, a stimulus is rendered invisible through the presentation of a second stimulus shortly after the first. Over the years, authors have typically explained masking by postulating some early disruption process. In these feedforward-type explanations, the mask somehow “catches up” with the target stimulus, disrupting its processing either through lateral or interchannel inhibition. However, studies from recent years indicate that visual perception—and most notably visual awareness itself—may depend strongly on cortico-cortical feedback connections from higher to lower visual areas. This has led some researchers to propose that masking derives its effectiveness from selectively interrupting these reentrant processes. In this experiment, we used electroencephalogram measurements to determine what happens in the human visual cortex during detection of a texture-defined square under nonmasked (seen) and masked (unseen) conditions. Electro-encephalogram derivatives that are typically associated with reentrant processing turn out to be absent in the masked condition. Moreover, extrastriate visual areas are still activated early on by both seen and unseen stimuli, as shown by scalp surface Laplacian current source-density maps. This conclusively shows that feedforward processing is preserved, even when subject performance is at chance as determined by objective measures. From these results, we conclude that masking derives its effectiveness, at least partly, from disrupting reentrant processing, thereby interfering with the neural mechanisms of figure-ground segmentation and visual awareness itself.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.9.1488

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Accumulating evidence suggests a role for superficial pyramidal cells in representation (prediction) and error coding, while L5 cells may function especially in representation coding.

    “Accumulating evidence suggests a role for superficial pyramidal cells in representation (prediction) and error coding, while L5 cells may function especially in representation coding.23,118,135”

    From An integrative, multiscale view on neural theories of consciousness (2024) · cites this paper as [118]

    The Results describe feedforward and reentrant visual processing, and the Discussion addresses contextual modulation in V1; neither assigns prediction, error, or representation coding to particular cell layers. Searches for superficial pyramidal cells and L5 representation coding found no passage addressing those roles. Page numbers were not provided for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate-A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, Methodological, 57, 289-300.
  2. Boyer, J. L., Harrison, S., & Ro, T. (2005). Unconscious processing of orientation and color without primary visual cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 102, 16875-16879.
  3. Di Lollo, V., Enns, J. T., & Rensink, R. A. (2000). Competition for consciousness among visual events: The psychophysics of reentrant visual processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 481-507.
  4. Eimer, M., & Schlaghecken, F. (1998). Effects of masked stimuli on motor activation: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1737-1747.
  5. Francis, G. (1997). Cortical dynamics of lateral inhibition: Metacontrast masking. Psychological Review, 104, 572-594.
  6. Hartline, H. K. (1949). Inhibition of activity of visual receptors by illuminating nearby retinal areas in the Limulus eye. Federation Proceedings, 8, 69.
  7. Kovacs, G., Vogels, R., & Orban, G. A. (1995). Cortical correlate of pattern backward-masking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 92, 5587-5591.
  8. Lamme, V. A. F. (1995). The neurophysiology of figure ground segregation in primary visual-cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 1605-1615.
  9. Lamme, V. A. F., Zipser, K., & Spekreijse, H. (2002). Masking interrupts figure-ground signals in V1. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 1044-1053. 1496 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 19, Number 9
  10. Macknik, S. L., & Martinez-Conde, S. (2004). Dichoptic visual masking reveals that early binocular neurons exhibit weak interocular suppression: Implications for binocular vision and visual awareness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1049-1059.
  11. Naccache, L., Gaillard, R., Adam, C., Hasboun, D., Clemenceau, S., Baulac, M., et al. (2005). A direct intracranial record of emotions evoked by subliminal words. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 102, 7713-7717.
  12. Nunez, P., & Srinivasan, R. (2006). Electric fields of the brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  13. Rolls, E. T., & Tovee, M. J. (1994). Processing speed in the cerebral-cortex and the neurophysiology of visual masking. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences, 257, 9-15.
  14. Spratling, M. W., & Johnson, M. H. (2004). A feedback model of visual attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 219-237.
  15. VanRullen, R., & Koch, C. (2003). Visual selective behavior can be triggered by a feed-forward process. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 209-217.
  16. Weidner, R., Shah, N. J., & Fink, G. R. (2006). The neural basis of perceptual hypothesis generation and testing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 258-266.
  17. Weiskrantz, L., Barbur, J. L., & Sahraie, A. (1995). Parameters affecting conscious versus unconscious visual-discrimination with damage to the visual-cortex (V1). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 92, 6122-6126.
  18. Wickens, T. D. (2002). Elementary signal detection theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  19. Zipser, K., Lamme, V. A. F., & Schiller, P. H. (1996). Contextual modulation in primary visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 16, 7376-7389.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fahrenfort, J. J., Scholte, H. S., & Lamme, V. A. F.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience (NL)
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2007-09-01
Volume
19
Issue
9
Pages
1488-1497
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2136028902
Cited by
344
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 22
FWCI
6.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
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 › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
visual masking, feedforward processing, visual awareness, foreground-background segmentation, extrastriate visual areas, current source density, EEG, visual cortex
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain Mapping, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Female, Humans, Male, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Perceptual Masking, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Time Factors, Visual Cortex, Visual Fields

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