Metacontrast masking of symmetric stimuli

Abstract

This study investigated whether symmetry perception is vulnerable to metacontrast masking and whether such masking selectively disrupts feedback-dependent visual processes. Across four experiments, we employed a metacontrast paradigm with briefly presented targets (20 ms) followed by masks at varying stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs), manipulating both target-mask configuration and task demands. All experiments produced the classic U-shaped accuracy-by-SOA curve associated with Type B masking, where performance is lowest at intermediate SOAs. Critically, performance at 0 ms SOA varied depending on the perceptual compatibility of the stimuli. In Experiments 1 and 2, the target and mask were spatially complementary and could be perceptually grouped into a unified figure. Under these conditions, performance at 0 ms SOA exceeded the no-mask baseline, reflecting facilitation due to perceptual integration. In contrast, in Experiments 3 and 4-where the stimuli and mask had no complementary shape and could not be integrated into a coherent object-performance at 0 ms SOA was slightly suppressed, indicating that integration failed to occur. These findings suggest that facilitation at short SOAs depends on the rapid formation of a coherent perceptual object, whereas symmetry detection-requiring temporally extended, feedback-supported integration-is more susceptible to early interruption by masking. Together, these results support both dual-channel and recurrent models of visual masking. Type B suppression reflects interactions between fast feedforward and slower feedback signals, while the presence or absence of early facilitation serves as an index of perceptual organization. These findings underscore how stimulus structure and task context affect the temporal dynamics of shape perception.

Fig 1. A: Schematic of the trial sequence. The target (e.g., disk or shape) was shown for 20 ms, followed by the mask with stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) ranging from 0 to 200 ms. The mask, an annular ring, did not overlap with the target and was displayed for 20 ms. Participants responded after the mask disappeared. Eye-tracking ensured that fixation remained within a ± 1° boundary around a red fixation cross, located 3° below the target. B: Schematic of stimuli across the four experiments. Stimuli were positioned 3° above fixation in all experiments.

Fig 2. Accuracy across SOA conditions in Experiments 1 to 4.

Experiment 1 (Shape Discrimination Task) shows an inverted U-shaped masking curve, with facilitation at 0 ms SOA and suppression at intermediate SOAs (10–80 ms). Accuracy recovers at longer SOAs (160–200 ms). The dashed line represents the no-mask performance baseline. Experiment 2 (Shape Discrimination Task: One vs. Two Missing Segments) replicates a similar inverted U-shaped function. Facilitation is observed at 0 ms SOA, with significant suppression at intermediate SOAs and recovery at longer SOAs. Experiment 3 (Symmetry Task with Octagonal Shapes) reveals a reduction in accuracy, particularly at 0 ms SOA, with an inverted U-shaped curve at intermediate SOAs. Experiment 4 (Symmetry Task with Abstract Irregular Shapes) shows no facilitation at 0 ms SOA. A sharp drop in accuracy occurs at short SOAs, with a gradual recovery at longer SOAs. Error bars represent standard error (SE).