Third, temporal-frequency selectivity could offer possible explanations for phenomena such as stimulus fractionation in CFS (Moors, Hesselmann, Wagemans, & van Ee,
2017; Zadbood, Lee, & Blake,
2011). Bearing resemblance to independent form- and motion-suppressive processes in rivalry (Alais & Parker,
2006), CFS suppression was reportedly more effective on the form of the target than its temporal information. Visibility of temporal modulations increases with temporal rate but not target form, which remained suppressed (Zadbood et al.,
2011). Since the Mondrian masker is biased toward low frequencies (
Figure 1), temporally selective processes cannot exert substantial suppression on higher target frequencies. This is important, as it explains the increased dissociation between form and temporal information at higher target-modulation rates. Similarly, the low temporal dominance of the Mondrian masker could explain the preservation of dorsal-stream activity in CFS (Fang & He,
2005). Low temporal frequencies are more likely to elicit parvocellular responses (Derrington & Lennie,
1984) that feed into the ventral stream (Merigan & Maunsell,
1993). As a result, dorsal activity that is elicited by target attributes such as high temporal frequencies (Derrington & Lennie,
1984; Merigan & Maunsell,
1993) and elongated shapes (Sakuraba, Sakai, Yamanaka, Yokosawa, & Hirayama,
2009) is inevitably spared. As pointed out by Ludwig and Hesselmann (
2015), differences in the extent of dorsal preservation (see Fogelson, Kohler, Miller, Granger, & Tse,
2014; Hesselmann & Malach,
2011) would then depend on the low-level characteristics of the target and masker presented and the method of presentation used.