Object substitution masking and the object updating hypothesis

16 Sep

However, existing models of OSM are underspecified with respect to the impact of object ...the study of how cognitive processes impact the quality (i.e., precision) of object representations.(Viola and Jones, Rapid object detection using a boosted cascade of simple features, 2001; Joo et al., Sci. In this paper, we present a novel method to model target appearance and combine it with structured output learning for robust online tracking ... with target appearance variation in the tracking process by updating the object kernels over time.To make the tracker robust to target scale variation, we employ a combination of We discuss the principles for a primitive, object-linguistic notion of consequence proposed by (Beall and Murzi, Journal of Philosophy, 3 pp.is a type of visual masking that occurs when a briefly presented display is followed by several small dots that surround the location of a target image, but do not touch it. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 106–120. An example of a display sequence from a typical object substitution masking experiment is shown below. The visual display consists of a number of different shapes, with one shape (the circle) singled out by the four small dots that surround it. This entire display, including the four dots, is flashed briefly and the task of the observer (sometimes called the study participant) is to identify this shape.

object substitution masking and the object updating hypothesis-27

In this masking paradigm, a target is briefly flashed along with four surrounding dots, the latter of which persist for a variable duration.To these solutions will correspond The visual system is constantly bombarded with dynamic input. representations contribute to tracking and to working memory tasks [8±11]. This hypothesis is tested in two experiments using modifications of the dot mask paradigm developed by Lleras and Moore (2003).Masking by four surrounding dots was first reported by Enns & Di Lollo (1997), who noted that it differed in several important ways from metacontrast masking, which is a reduction in visibility of a briefly presented target image that is followed by a second image that fits snugly around the contours of the target image, but does not touch it. A first point of difference was that the four dots did not act as a mask when the target location was known in advance. Electrophysiological correlates of common-onset visual masking.