Visual attention and metacontrast modify latency to perception in opposite 
directions

Kirschfeld, K; Kammer, T

doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(00)00040-7

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

Visual attention and metacontrast modify latency to perception in opposite directions

MPS-Authors

/persons/resource/persons84015

Kirschfeld, K
Former Department Comparative Neurobiology, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons84000

Kammer, T
Former Department Comparative Neurobiology, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

External Resource

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698900000407
(Publisher version)

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

Fulltext (public)

There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Kirschfeld, K., & Kammer, T. (2000). Visual attention and metacontrast modify latency to perception in opposite directions. Vision Research, 40(9), 1027-1033. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(00)00040-7.

Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-E507-B

Abstract

In human observers, cue-induced visual attention (‘bottom-up‘ transient focal attention) shortens the latency of perception. Metacontrast reduces the
intensity of perception and can even obliterate it. We show that a close relationship exists between both, but that their effects are reversed: cue-induced visual
attention not only shortens latency but also intensifies perception, and metacontrast not only lowers intensity of perception but also prolongs latency. A common
neurophysiological mechanism for both is possible. Indirect evidence suggests that this could be a subthreshold modulation of neuronal thresholds by de- and
hyperpolarization. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.