Cargando…

Differences in perceptual masking between humans and rats

INTRODUCTION: The perception of a target stimulus can be impaired by a subsequent mask stimulus, even if they do not overlap temporally or spatially. This “backward masking” is commonly used to modulate a subject's awareness of a target and to characterize the temporal dynamics of vision. Maski...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dell, Katrina L., Arabzadeh, Ehsan, Price, Nicholas S. C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6749492/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31444998
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/brb3.1368
_version_ 1783452291251044352
author Dell, Katrina L.
Arabzadeh, Ehsan
Price, Nicholas S. C.
author_facet Dell, Katrina L.
Arabzadeh, Ehsan
Price, Nicholas S. C.
author_sort Dell, Katrina L.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The perception of a target stimulus can be impaired by a subsequent mask stimulus, even if they do not overlap temporally or spatially. This “backward masking” is commonly used to modulate a subject's awareness of a target and to characterize the temporal dynamics of vision. Masking is most apparent with brief, low‐contrast targets, making detection difficult even in the absence of a mask. Although necessary to investigate the underlying neural mechanisms, evaluating masking phenomena in animal models is particularly challenging, as the task structure and critical stimulus features to be attended must be learned incrementally through rewards and feedback. Despite the increasing popularity of rodents in vision research, it is unclear if they are susceptible to masking illusions. METHODS: We characterized how spatially surrounding masks affected the detection of sine‐wave grating targets. RESULTS: In humans (n = 5) and rats (n = 7), target detection improved with contrast and was reduced by the presence of a mask. After controlling for biases to respond induced by the presence of the mask, a clear reduction in detectability was caused by masks. This reduction was evident when data were averaged across all animals, but was only individually significant in three animals. CONCLUSIONS: While perceptual masking occurs in rats, it may be difficult to observe consistently in individual animals because the complexity of the requisite task pushes the limits of their behavioral capabilities. We suggest methods to ensure that masking, and similarly subtle effects, can be reliably characterized in future experiments.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6749492
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67494922019-09-23 Differences in perceptual masking between humans and rats Dell, Katrina L. Arabzadeh, Ehsan Price, Nicholas S. C. Brain Behav Original Research INTRODUCTION: The perception of a target stimulus can be impaired by a subsequent mask stimulus, even if they do not overlap temporally or spatially. This “backward masking” is commonly used to modulate a subject's awareness of a target and to characterize the temporal dynamics of vision. Masking is most apparent with brief, low‐contrast targets, making detection difficult even in the absence of a mask. Although necessary to investigate the underlying neural mechanisms, evaluating masking phenomena in animal models is particularly challenging, as the task structure and critical stimulus features to be attended must be learned incrementally through rewards and feedback. Despite the increasing popularity of rodents in vision research, it is unclear if they are susceptible to masking illusions. METHODS: We characterized how spatially surrounding masks affected the detection of sine‐wave grating targets. RESULTS: In humans (n = 5) and rats (n = 7), target detection improved with contrast and was reduced by the presence of a mask. After controlling for biases to respond induced by the presence of the mask, a clear reduction in detectability was caused by masks. This reduction was evident when data were averaged across all animals, but was only individually significant in three animals. CONCLUSIONS: While perceptual masking occurs in rats, it may be difficult to observe consistently in individual animals because the complexity of the requisite task pushes the limits of their behavioral capabilities. We suggest methods to ensure that masking, and similarly subtle effects, can be reliably characterized in future experiments. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-08-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6749492/ /pubmed/31444998 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/brb3.1368 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Brain and Behavior published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Dell, Katrina L.
Arabzadeh, Ehsan
Price, Nicholas S. C.
Differences in perceptual masking between humans and rats
title Differences in perceptual masking between humans and rats
title_full Differences in perceptual masking between humans and rats
title_fullStr Differences in perceptual masking between humans and rats
title_full_unstemmed Differences in perceptual masking between humans and rats
title_short Differences in perceptual masking between humans and rats
title_sort differences in perceptual masking between humans and rats
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6749492/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31444998
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/brb3.1368
work_keys_str_mv AT dellkatrinal differencesinperceptualmaskingbetweenhumansandrats
AT arabzadehehsan differencesinperceptualmaskingbetweenhumansandrats
AT pricenicholassc differencesinperceptualmaskingbetweenhumansandrats