000			02140nab a2200253 4500
003			OSt
005			20220803105751.0
007			cr aa aaaaa
008			220719b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100			_aPilling, Michael _949104
245			_aPerceptual Errors Support the Notion of Masking by Object Substitution/
260			_bsage _c2019
300			_aVol 48, Issue 2, 2019: (138-161 p.).
520			_aTwo experiments examined the effect of object substitution masking (OSM) on the perceptual errors in reporting the orientation of a target. In Experiment 1, a four-dot trailing mask was compared with a simultaneous-noise mask. In Experiment 2, the four-dot and noise masks were factorially varied. Responses were modelled using a mixture regression model and Bayesian inference to deduce whether the relative impacts of OSM on guessing and precision were the same as those of a noise mask, and thus whether the mechanism underpinning OSM is based on increasing noise rather than a substitution process. Across both experiments, OSM was associated with an increased guessing rate when the mask trailed target offset and a reduction in the precision of the target representation (although the latter was less reliable across the two experiments). Importantly, the noise mask also influenced both guessing and precision, but in a different manner, suggesting that OSM is not simply caused by increasing noise. In Experiment 2, the effects of OSM and simultaneous-noise interacted, suggesting the two manipulations involve common mechanisms. Overall results suggest that OSM is often a consequence of a substitution process, but there is evidence that the mask increases noise levels on trials where substitution does not occur.
650			_aobject substitution masking, _949105
650			_a error distributions, _949106
650			_aBayesian mixed-models analysis, _949107
650			_aattentional gating _949108
700			_aGuest, Duncan _949109
700			_aAndrews, Mark _949110
773	0		_012374 _916462 _dSage, _tPerception _x1468-4233
856			_uhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0301006619825782
942			_2ddc _cART
999			_c12405 _d12405