The role of voluntary and involuntary attention in selecting perceptual dominance during binocular rivalry

When incompatible images are presented to corresponding regions of each eye, perception alternates between the two monocular views (binocular rivalry). In this study, we have investigated how involuntary (exogenous) and voluntary (endogenous) attention can influence the perceptual dominance of one rival image or the other during contour rivalry. Subjects viewed two orthogonal grating stimuli that were presented to both eyes. Involuntary attention was directed to one of the grating stimuli with a brief change in orientation. After a short period, the cued grating was removed from the image in one eye and the uncued grating was removed from the image in the other eye, generating binocular rivalry. Subjects usually reported dominance of the cued grating during the rivalry period. We found that the influence of the cue declined with the interval between its onset and the onset of binocular rivalry in a manner consistent with the effect of involuntary attention. Finally, we demonstrated that voluntary attention to a grating stimulus could also influence the ongoing changes in perceptual dominance that accompany longer periods of binocular rivalry Voluntary attention did not increase the mean dominance period of the attended grating, but rather decreased the mean dominance period of the non-attended grating. This pattern is analogous to increasing the perceived contrast of the attended grating. These results suggest that the competition during binocular rivalry might be an example of a more general attentional mechanism within the visual system.     

Binocular rivalry and surface-boundary processing

Theoretical and empirical studies show that the visual system relies on boundary contours and surface features (e.g. textures) to represent 3-D surfaces. When the surface to be represented has little texture information, or has a periodic texture pattern (grating), the boundary contour information assumes a larger weight in representing the surface. Adopting the premise that the mechanisms of 3-D surface representation also determine binocular rivalry perception, the current paper focuses on whether boundary contours have a similar role in binocular rivalry. In experiment 1, we tested the prediction that the visual system prefers selecting an image/figure defined by boundary contours for rivalry dominance. We designed a binocular rivalry stimulus wherein one half-image has a boundary contour defined by a grating disk on a background with an orthogonal grating orientation. The other half-image consists solely of the (same orientation) grating background without the grating disk, ie no boundary contour. Confirming our prediction, the predominance for the half-image with the grating disk is approximately 90%, despite the fact that the grating disk corresponds to an area with orthogonal grating in the fellow eye. The advantage of the grating disk is dramatically reduced to about 50% predominance when a boundary contour is added to the background-only half-image at the location corresponding to the grating disk. We attribute this reduced advantage to the formation of a corresponding binocular boundary contour. In experiment 2 the grating background was substituted by a random-dot background in a similar stimulus design. We found that the perceptual salience of the corresponding binocular boundary contours extracted by the interocular matching process is an important factor in determining the dynamics of binocular rivalry. Experiment 3 showed that vertical lines with uneven thickness and spacing as the background reduce the contribution of the monocular boundary contour of the grating disk in binocular rivalry, possibly through the formation of binocular boundary contours between the local edges (vertical components) of the vertical lines and the corresponding grating disk.     

Possible monocular predictors of binocular rivalry of contours

An analysis of contour disappearances in conflicting patterned stereograms is made from the knowledge of two monocular events: contrast effects associated with contours and phasic local adaptation. It is argued that the percepts resulting from these monocular processes are combined simply by some more central process and that a suppression mechanism may not be necessary to account for contour rivalry. Predictions were tested in three experiments and the results tend to support the argument given.     

The monocular-boundary-contour mechanism in binocular surface representation and suppression

Boundary contours are important for representing binocular surfaces, including those in binocular rivalry. Ooi and He (2006, Perception 35 581-603) showed that a half-image with a boundary contour defined by abutting gratings predominates in binocular rivalry. We investigated the monocular-boundary-contour mechanism using Kanizsa square-like rivalry displays. In experiment 1, the left half-image had a vertical illusory contour on the right edge while the right half-image had a vertical illusory contour on the left edge. The Kanizsa elements (discs and pacmen) were filled with a 135 degree grating and placed on a 45 degree-grating background. When fused, observers experienced a strong predominance for perceiving an illusory rectangle in front of four discs. But this percept was replaced by robust rivalry alternations when the stimulus was manipulated by (i) switching the half-images between eyes, (ii)relocating the pacmen in each half-image to form horizontal illusory contours, or (iii) placing the pacmen diagonally (thus eliminating each monocular illusory contour). Such robust rivalry alternations were similar to those experienced when a 135 degree-grating disc was in rivalry with a 135 degree-grating pacman alone on the 45 degree-grating background (experiment 2). Experiment 3 showed that the relatively stable illusory-rectangle percept in experiment 1 is affected by the alignment of the images in the two eyes, in a manner consistent with adherence to the occlusion constraint in binocular surface formation.     

Determinants of fusion of dichoptically presented orthogonal gratings

Liu, Tyler, and Schor (1992 Vision Research 32 1471-1479) reported the surprising finding that dichoptically presented orthogonal sine-wave gratings do not always produce binocular rivalry. Gratings of high spatial frequency, and especially of low contrast, fuse to produce a stable percept of a dichoptic plaid. Using a somewhat different perceptual task, we replicated those findings and extended them. The probability of a plaid percept is higher for square-wave gratings than for sine-wave gratings, and higher still for rectangular-wave gratings with high duty cycles (with very thin light or dark bars). Experiments were conducted to test whether this duty-cycle effect was due to changes in overall luminance, or in the size of the regions of luminance congruity (which may reduce the probability of rivalry), but no such effects could account for the results. The presence of locally conflicting contour information in the two eyes was shown to be an important determinant of rivalry onset, but, since removing such regions did not eliminate rivalry, other factors also have a role to play. The spatial frequency composition of the gratings is one such factor which is consistent with all of the findings we report.     

The effect of contrast on the completeness of binocular rivalry suppression

Binocular rivalry between orthogonal sine wave gratings was studied by asking subjects to indicate when they saw just one or the other grating, as opposed to a composite. Using this measure, it was found that the completeness of rivalry (1) usually increased with grating contrast; (2) increased as a trial progressed, up to about 40 sec; and (3) depended on spatial frequency, with the optimal spatial frequency being lower than that at which contrast sensitivity was maximal. These findings supplement what has been learned about rivalry by other methods.     

Binocular rivalry and visual awareness: the role of attention

When the right eye and the left eye view dissimilar scenes, the observer does not experience a stable superimposed percept of the images presented to the two eyes, but instead perceives an alternation between the images seen by each eye. A critical question confronting this robust and intriguing phenomenon of binocular rivalry is how the visual system selects the image to be perceived (dominant). The current main-stream literature emphasizes a bottom-up explanation in which the rivalry stimulus with the higher contour strength has the advantage, and becomes dominant in rivalry. Nevertheless, some workers in the past have favored an attention-selection explanation for binocular rivalry. We investigated the role of attention in binocular rivalry by employing novel psychophysical paradigms which capitalized on several established phenomena (e.g. the Cheshire Cat effect, attention cueing, pop-out effect). Our results revealed two major aspects of attention modulation in binocular rivalry. We found that a dominant image is less likely to be suppressed when voluntary attention is directed to it. This suggests the role of voluntary attention in retaining the dominant image in visual awareness. Second, a rivalry stimulus is more likely to become dominant if accompanied by a pop-out cue (in the same eye and proximity). Since a pop-out cue attracts involuntary attention to its location/eye, this result suggests that cue-mediated involuntary attention can promote the ability of a rivalry stimulus to reach visual awareness.     

The depth and selectivity of suppression in binocular rivalry

Binocular rivalry occurs when the two eyes are presented with incompatible stimuli and the perceived image alternates between the two stimuli. The aim of this study was to find out whether the periodic perceptual loss of a monocular stimulus during binocular rivalry is mirrored by a comparable loss of contrast sensitivity. We presented brief test stimuli to one eye while its conditioning stimulus was dominant or suppressed. The test stimuli were varied widely across four stimulus domains--namely, the relative stimulation of medium- and long-wavelength-sensitive cones, duration, spatial frequency, and grating orientation. The result in each case was the same. Suppression depended slightly or not at all on the type of test stimulus, and contrast sensitivity during suppression was around 64% of that during dominance. The effect of suppression on sensitivity is therefore very weak, relative to its effect on the perceived image. Furthermore, suppression was largely independent of the similarity between the conditioning and the test stimuli, indicating that our results are better explained by eye suppression than by stimulus suppression. A model is presented to account for the small, monocular sensitivity loss during suppression: It assumes that test detection precedes conditioning stimulus perception in the visual pathway.     

Shifting spatial attention makes you flip: Exogenous visual attention triggers perceptual alternations during binocular rivalry

Although it has been argued that visual attention and the dynamics of binocular rivalry are closely linked, strong evidence for this proposition is still lacking. Here, we investigate how perceptual alternations during binocular rivalry are affected by spatial attention by employing a cuing paradigm. We show a tight link between the occurrence of perceptual alternations and the spatiotemporal properties of visual attention: Alternations occurred earlier and more frequently at locations where visual attention was summoned by an exogenous cue. We argue that cuing a location where rival images are presented leads to a transient increase in the effective contrast of these rival images. This transient increase in effective contrast increases the probability of an alternation at that location. Furthermore, we suggest that an occipito-fronto-parietal network known to be involved in selective attention and binocular rivalry mediates perceptual alternations by boosting the neural response at attended locations.     

Aftereffects in binocular rivalry

Five experiments are reported in which the aftereffect paradigm was applied to binocular rivalry. In the first three experiments rivalry was between a vertical grating presented to the left eye and a horizontal grating presented to the right eye. In the fourth experiment the rivalry stimuli consisted of a rotating sectored disc presented to the left eye and a static concentric circular pattern presented to the right. In experiment 5 rivalry was between static radiating and circular patterns. The predominance durations were systematically influenced by direct (same eye) and indirect (interocular) adaptation in a manner similar to that seen for spatial aftereffects. Binocular adaptation produced an aftereffect that was significantly smaller than the direct aftereffect, but not significantly different from the indirect one. A model is developed to account for the results; it involves two levels of binocular interaction in addition to monocular channels. It is suggested that the site of spatial aftereffects is the same as that for binocular rivalry, rather than sequentially prior.     

Attention speeds binocular rivalry

During binocular rivalry, incompatible images presented dichoptically compete for perceptual dominance. It has long been debated whether binocular rivalry can be controlled by attention. Most studies have shown that voluntary control over binocular rivalry is limited. We sought to remove attention from binocular rivalry by presenting a concurrent task. Diverting attention slowed the rivalry alternation rate, and did so in proportion to the difficulty of the concurrent task. Even a very demanding distractor task, however, did not arrest rivalry alternations completely. Given that diverting attention was equivalent to lowering the contrast of the rival stimuli, the ability of attention to speed binocular rivalry is most likely due to an increase in the effective contrast of the stimuli through boosting the gain of the cortical response. This increase in effective contrast will ultimately lead to a perceptual switch, thereby limiting voluntary control. Thus, attention speeds rivalry alternations, but has no inherent control over the rivalry process.     

Binocular rivalry with rotary and radial motions

Binocular rivalry between a radially sectored and a concentrically circular pattern was investigated in three experiments. Motion of the circular pattern was either cyclical expansion and contraction with corresponding changes in spatial frequency (experiment 1), or outward motion with a constant linear velocity (experiment 2). When both patterns were static the circular pattern was visible for longer than the radial one. Motion of either pattern alone resulted in an increase in the predominance duration and the mean period for which the pattern was visible. This is at variance with Levelt's model of rivalry. In the third experiment, rivalry was between a static circular pattern and a radial pattern that could be rotated at different angular velocities. Again it was found that an increase in stimulus strength, as measured by predominance, led to an increase in the mean periods of visibility of the rotating pattern.     

Absence of binocular interaction between spatial and color attributes of visual stimuli

The hypothesis that induction of the McCollough effect (spatially selective color aftereffects) entails adaptation of monocularly driven detectors tuned to both spatial and color attributes of the visual stimulus was examined in four experiments. The McCollough effect could not be generated by displaying contour information to one eye and color information to the other eye during inspection, even in the absence of binocular rivalry. Nor was it possible to induce depth-specific color aftereffects following an inspection period during which random-dot stereograms were viewed, with crossed and uncrossed disparity seen in different colored light. Masking and aftereffect in the perception of stereoscopic depth were also nonselective to color; in both cases, perceptual distortion was controlled by stereospatial variables but not by the color relationship between the inspection and test stimuli. The results suggest that binocularly driven spatial detectors in human vision are insensitive to wavelength.     

Selective attention and the control of binocular rivalry

The control of binocular rivalry (BR) was reintroduced as an example of selective attention after several decades. Ss passively observed BR in a stereoscopic tachistoscope and, at an undetermined phase of rivalry, received an instruction signal to attend to one of the rivalry patterns. Letter test stimuli were presented to either the instructed (I) eye or noninstructed (NI) eye 1, 3, 5, or 7 sec following the instruction signal. The difference between the eyes in recognition performance (I-NI) provided an objective measure of control, which was correlated with previously used measures based on subjective reports of rivalry alternation rates. Subjective and objective measures showed correlated increases as a result of practice of control. The fact that the objective measure reached a peak value at the 3-sec delay of test stimuli suggested a minimum time to shift attention and maximum time to maintain attention in BR. In addition, it was found that the control of BR results in a change of signal strength with no associated change in the use of confidence ratings, a result similar to that found with selective attention in dichotic listening.     

Monocular and binocular rivalry between contours.

The temporal characteristics of binocular and monocular rivalry between orthogonal gratings of the same or complementary colours were investigated. Rivalry was measured in terms of the dominance of either grating or the visibility of composites comprised of parts of both gratings. The total duration for which either grating was dominant was significantly longer in binocular rivalry between gratings of complementary colours. A comparison of binocular and monocular rivalry indicated considerable phenomenal differences between them. Dominance in binocular rivalry corresponds to the visibility of one grating alone; this occurs rarely in monocular rivalry, which is characterized by fluctuations in the distinctiveness of the gratings. The changes in distinctiveness are influenced by colour in a similar manner to that in binocular rivalry, and the frequencies of fluctuations are higher for gratings of complementary colours.     

Binocularity and visual search—Revisited

Binocular rivalry is a phenomenon of visual competition in which perception alternates between two monocular images. When two eye’s images only differ in luminance, observers may perceive shininess, a form of rivalry called binocular luster. Does dichoptic information guide attention in visual search? Wolfe and Franzel (Perception & Psychophysics, 44(1), 81–93, 1988) reported that rivalry could guide attention only weakly, but that luster (shininess) “popped out,” producing very shallow Reaction Time (RT) × Set Size functions. In this study, we have revisited the topic with new and improved stimuli. By using a checkerboard pattern in rivalry experiments, we found that search for rivalry can be more efficient (16 ms/item) than standard, rivalrous grating (30 ms/item). The checkerboard may reduce distracting orientation signals that masked the salience of rivalry between simple orthogonal gratings. Lustrous stimuli did not pop out when potential contrast and luminance artifacts were reduced. However, search efficiency was substantially improved when luster was added to the search target. Both rivalry and luster tasks can produce search asymmetries, as is characteristic of guiding features in search. These results suggest that interocular differences that produce rivalry or luster can guide attention, but these effects are relatively weak and can be hidden by other features like luminance and orientation in visual search tasks.     

Binocular rivalry and reciprocal inhibition

Any explanation of binocular rivalry based on a reciprocal inhibition mechanism would require that unilateral increases in the stimulus strength of the rivalry target in one eye produce increases in the mean nonsuppression duration of that eye and concommitant decreases in the mean nonsuppression duration of the contralateral eye. To test that hypothesis, the stimulus strength (in this case, contrast) of one rivalry target was varied (0.1, 1, 10, and 100 ft-L) while the strength of the target in the other eye remained constant. The data, obtained from six experienced Ss, indicate that variations in stimulus strength do not alter the mean nonsuppression duration of the recipient eye. This outcome offers a fundamental difficulty for the reciprocal inhibition concept. A model that assumes partially independent suppression and dominance mechanisms is suggested as a more adequate alternative.     

When your brain decides what you see: grouping across monocular, binocular, and stimulus rivalry

Research suggests that the neural concomitants of visual rivalry are contingent on the stimulus parameters, implying the existence of three different types of rivalry. Binocular rivalry (dissimilar patterns are presented, one to each eye) is seemingly mediated by interactions between pools of monocular neurons. Monocular rivalry (superimposed patterns are presented to one or both eyes) is presumably the result of competition between neural representations of the patterns. Stimulus rivalry (dissimilar patterns are swapped rapidly between the two eyes) is independent of eye of origin. In the experiment reported here, we integrated these three different types of rivalry into one stimulus. We found that perceptual alternations span the three types of rivalry, demonstrating that the brain can produce a coherent percept sourced from three different types of visual conflict. This result is in agreement with recent work suggesting that the resolution of competitive visual stimuli is mediated by a general mechanism spanning different levels of the visual-processing hierarchy.     

Color-Binding Errors During Rivalrous Suppression of Form

ABSTRACT— How does a physical stimulus determine a conscious percept? Binocular rivalry provides useful insights into this question because constant physical stimulation during rivalry causes different visual experiences. For example, presentation of vertical stripes to one eye and horizontal stripes to the other eye results in a percept that alternates between horizontal and vertical stripes. Presentation of a different color to each eye (color rivalry) produces alternating percepts of the two colors or, in some cases, a color mixture. The experiments reported here reveal a novel and instructive resolution of rivalry for stimuli that differ in both form and color: perceptual alternation between the rivalrous forms (e.g., horizontal or vertical stripes), with both eyes' colors seen simultaneously in separate parts of the currently perceived form. Thus, the colors presented to the two eyes (a) maintain their distinct neural representations despite resolution of form rivalry and (b) can bind separately to distinct parts of the perceived form.     

Not just another face in the crowd: Detecting emotional schematic faces during continuous flash suppression

To test whether threatening visual information receives prioritized processing, many studies have examined visual search for emotional schematic faces. Still, it has remained unclear whether negative or positive schematic faces are processed more efficiently. We used continuous flash suppression, a variant of binocular rivalry, to render single emotional schematic faces invisible and measured whether negative or positive faces have an advantage in accessing awareness. Across three experiments, positive faces were detected more quickly than negative faces. A fourth experiment indicated that this positive face advantage was unrelated to the valence of the face stimuli but due to the relative orientation of the mouth curvature and the face contour. These findings demonstrate the impact of configural stimulus properties on perceptual suppression during binocular rivalry and point to a perceptual confound present in emotional schematic faces that might account for some ambiguous results obtained with schematic face stimuli in previous studies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).