ArticlePloS one2025
Metacontrast masking of symmetric stimuli.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.