Transient attention does increase perceived contrast of suprathreshold stimuli

A reply to Prinzmetal, Long, and Leonhardt (2008)

Marisa Carrasco-Queijeiro, Stuart Fuller, Sam Ling

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Carrasco, Ling, and Read (2004) showed that transient attention increases perceived contrast. However, Prinzmetal, Long, and Leonhardt (2008) suggest that for targets of low visibility, observers may bias their response toward the cued location, and they propose a cuebias explanation for our previous results. Our response is threefold. First, we outline several key methodological differences between the studies that could account for the different results. We conclude that the cuebias hypothesis is a plausible explanation for Prinzmetal et al.'s (2008) results, given the characteristics of their stimuli, but not for the studies by Carrasco and colleagues, in which the stimuli were suprathreshold (Carrasco, Ling, & Read, 2004; Fuller, Rodriguez, & Carrasco, 2008; Ling & Carrasco, 2007). Second, we conduct a study to show that the stimuli used in our previous studies are not nearthreshold, but suprathreshold (Experiment 1, Phase 1). Furthermore, we found an increase in apparent contrast for a highcontrast stimulus when it was precued, but not when it was postcued, providing more evidence against a cuebias hypothesis (Experiment 1, Phase 2). We also show that the visibility of the stimuli in Prinzmetal et al. (2008) was much lower than that of Carrasco, Ling, and Read, rendering their stimuli susceptible to their cuebias explanation (Experiment 2). Third, we present a comprehensive summary of all the control conditions used in different labs that have ruled out a cue bias explanation of the appearance studies. We conclude that a cuebias explanation may operate with nearthreshold and lowvisibility stimuli, as was the case in Prinzmetal et al. (2008), but that such an explanation has no bearing on studies with suprathreshold stimuli. Consistent with our previous studies, the present data support the claim that attention does alter the contrast appearance of suprathreshold stimuli.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1151-1164
Number of pages14
JournalPerception & Psychophysics
Volume70
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2008

Fingerprint

stimulus
Observer Variation
Cues
experiment
Stimulus
trend
evidence
Experiment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sensory Systems
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Cite this

Transient attention does increase perceived contrast of suprathreshold stimuli : A reply to Prinzmetal, Long, and Leonhardt (2008). / Carrasco-Queijeiro, Marisa; Fuller, Stuart; Ling, Sam.

In: Perception & Psychophysics, Vol. 70, No. 7, 10.2008, p. 1151-1164.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Carrasco-Queijeiro, Marisa ; Fuller, Stuart ; Ling, Sam. / Transient attention does increase perceived contrast of suprathreshold stimuli : A reply to Prinzmetal, Long, and Leonhardt (2008). In: Perception & Psychophysics. 2008 ; Vol. 70, No. 7. pp. 1151-1164.
@article{664d3147cc264d51ad68e4e342330fd3,
title = "Transient attention does increase perceived contrast of suprathreshold stimuli: A reply to Prinzmetal, Long, and Leonhardt (2008)",
abstract = "Carrasco, Ling, and Read (2004) showed that transient attention increases perceived contrast. However, Prinzmetal, Long, and Leonhardt (2008) suggest that for targets of low visibility, observers may bias their response toward the cued location, and they propose a cuebias explanation for our previous results. Our response is threefold. First, we outline several key methodological differences between the studies that could account for the different results. We conclude that the cuebias hypothesis is a plausible explanation for Prinzmetal et al.'s (2008) results, given the characteristics of their stimuli, but not for the studies by Carrasco and colleagues, in which the stimuli were suprathreshold (Carrasco, Ling, & Read, 2004; Fuller, Rodriguez, & Carrasco, 2008; Ling & Carrasco, 2007). Second, we conduct a study to show that the stimuli used in our previous studies are not nearthreshold, but suprathreshold (Experiment 1, Phase 1). Furthermore, we found an increase in apparent contrast for a highcontrast stimulus when it was precued, but not when it was postcued, providing more evidence against a cuebias hypothesis (Experiment 1, Phase 2). We also show that the visibility of the stimuli in Prinzmetal et al. (2008) was much lower than that of Carrasco, Ling, and Read, rendering their stimuli susceptible to their cuebias explanation (Experiment 2). Third, we present a comprehensive summary of all the control conditions used in different labs that have ruled out a cue bias explanation of the appearance studies. We conclude that a cuebias explanation may operate with nearthreshold and lowvisibility stimuli, as was the case in Prinzmetal et al. (2008), but that such an explanation has no bearing on studies with suprathreshold stimuli. Consistent with our previous studies, the present data support the claim that attention does alter the contrast appearance of suprathreshold stimuli.",
author = "Marisa Carrasco-Queijeiro and Stuart Fuller and Sam Ling",
year = "2008",
month = "10",
doi = "10.3758/PP.70.7.1151",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "70",
pages = "1151--1164",
journal = "Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics",
issn = "1943-3921",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Transient attention does increase perceived contrast of suprathreshold stimuli

T2 - A reply to Prinzmetal, Long, and Leonhardt (2008)

AU - Carrasco-Queijeiro, Marisa

AU - Fuller, Stuart

AU - Ling, Sam

PY - 2008/10

Y1 - 2008/10

N2 - Carrasco, Ling, and Read (2004) showed that transient attention increases perceived contrast. However, Prinzmetal, Long, and Leonhardt (2008) suggest that for targets of low visibility, observers may bias their response toward the cued location, and they propose a cuebias explanation for our previous results. Our response is threefold. First, we outline several key methodological differences between the studies that could account for the different results. We conclude that the cuebias hypothesis is a plausible explanation for Prinzmetal et al.'s (2008) results, given the characteristics of their stimuli, but not for the studies by Carrasco and colleagues, in which the stimuli were suprathreshold (Carrasco, Ling, & Read, 2004; Fuller, Rodriguez, & Carrasco, 2008; Ling & Carrasco, 2007). Second, we conduct a study to show that the stimuli used in our previous studies are not nearthreshold, but suprathreshold (Experiment 1, Phase 1). Furthermore, we found an increase in apparent contrast for a highcontrast stimulus when it was precued, but not when it was postcued, providing more evidence against a cuebias hypothesis (Experiment 1, Phase 2). We also show that the visibility of the stimuli in Prinzmetal et al. (2008) was much lower than that of Carrasco, Ling, and Read, rendering their stimuli susceptible to their cuebias explanation (Experiment 2). Third, we present a comprehensive summary of all the control conditions used in different labs that have ruled out a cue bias explanation of the appearance studies. We conclude that a cuebias explanation may operate with nearthreshold and lowvisibility stimuli, as was the case in Prinzmetal et al. (2008), but that such an explanation has no bearing on studies with suprathreshold stimuli. Consistent with our previous studies, the present data support the claim that attention does alter the contrast appearance of suprathreshold stimuli.

AB - Carrasco, Ling, and Read (2004) showed that transient attention increases perceived contrast. However, Prinzmetal, Long, and Leonhardt (2008) suggest that for targets of low visibility, observers may bias their response toward the cued location, and they propose a cuebias explanation for our previous results. Our response is threefold. First, we outline several key methodological differences between the studies that could account for the different results. We conclude that the cuebias hypothesis is a plausible explanation for Prinzmetal et al.'s (2008) results, given the characteristics of their stimuli, but not for the studies by Carrasco and colleagues, in which the stimuli were suprathreshold (Carrasco, Ling, & Read, 2004; Fuller, Rodriguez, & Carrasco, 2008; Ling & Carrasco, 2007). Second, we conduct a study to show that the stimuli used in our previous studies are not nearthreshold, but suprathreshold (Experiment 1, Phase 1). Furthermore, we found an increase in apparent contrast for a highcontrast stimulus when it was precued, but not when it was postcued, providing more evidence against a cuebias hypothesis (Experiment 1, Phase 2). We also show that the visibility of the stimuli in Prinzmetal et al. (2008) was much lower than that of Carrasco, Ling, and Read, rendering their stimuli susceptible to their cuebias explanation (Experiment 2). Third, we present a comprehensive summary of all the control conditions used in different labs that have ruled out a cue bias explanation of the appearance studies. We conclude that a cuebias explanation may operate with nearthreshold and lowvisibility stimuli, as was the case in Prinzmetal et al. (2008), but that such an explanation has no bearing on studies with suprathreshold stimuli. Consistent with our previous studies, the present data support the claim that attention does alter the contrast appearance of suprathreshold stimuli.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=55449106680&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=55449106680&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3758/PP.70.7.1151

DO - 10.3758/PP.70.7.1151

M3 - Article

VL - 70

SP - 1151

EP - 1164

JO - Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

JF - Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

SN - 1943-3921

IS - 7

ER -