Conditions required for binocular rivalry suppression

When the two eyes are presented with incompatible stimuli, the two monocular stimuli are seen alternately in a never-ending cycle. It is now widely accepted that the neural processes underlying this phenomenon, binocular rivalry, are distributed across a number of cortical stages. It is not clear, however, where binocular rivalry is initiated. We performed two experiments whose aim was to clarify this issue. In the first experiment, rivalry was induced, and brief test stimuli were delivered to an eye while its inducing stimulus was either dominant or suppressed. Sensitivity to a test stimulus with features similar to those of the suppressed inducing stimulus was reduced only when the test was presented to the eye whose inducing stimulus was suppressed. This indicates that suppression of a monocular channel is a prerequisite for binocular rivalry suppression. The second experiment showed that to induce rivalry, local interocular stimulus incompatibilities were necessary and that conflicting global percepts were not sufficient. These results suggest that low-level visual processes are required for the initiation of binocular rivalry.     

Briefly presented stimuli can disrupt constant suppression and binocular rivalry suppression

An earlier study has shown that the intermittent suppression of one monocular stimulus by another in binocular rivalry does not occur when normally rivalrous stimuli are briefly presented. Constant suppression of stimuli presented to one eye is a common consequence of esotropia during development. A study is reported which demonstrates that constant suppression does not occur when stimuli are briefly presented. The dependence of suppression on stimulus duration is similar in both forms of suppression.     

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 dichoptic masking: suppressed stimuli do not mask stimuli in a dominating eye

Reaction time was used to gauge the sensitivity of an eye during its dominant and suppressed phases of binocular rivalry. During dominance, performance was uniformly good in detecting both stimuli that were spatially identical to the suppressed stimulus and those that were different in spatial frequency. When suppressed eyes were tested, performance was poor when the stimulus was different from the dominating stimulus, but even worse when the test stimulus and the dominating stimulus were spatially identical. The results favor the view that suppression operates nonselectively on a monocular visual channel, prior to the point at which dichoptic pattern masking occurs.     

On the inhibitory nature of binocular rivalry suppression

During binocular rivalry the average duration of a suppression phase depends on the stimulus strength (e.g., contrast) of the input to the suppressed eye. To determine if a similar relationship exists between stimulus strength and the inhibitory effect of suppression on test probe detectability, a series of experiments was performed. Using two-alternative forced-choice procedures, increment detection thresholds were measured during phases of dominance and suppression. Results from three trained observers show that detection performance is significantly impaired during suppression by an amount that is independent of any difference in contrast between the rivalrous stimuli. These data indicate that the magnitude of the inhibitory effect of suppression is governed by a mechanism other than that which determines suppression duration.     

A neural theory of binocular rivalry

When the two eyes view discrepant monocular stimuli, stable single vision gives way to alternating periods of monocular dominance; this is the well-known but little understood phenomenon of binocular rivalry. This article develops a neural theory of binocular rivalry that treats the phenomenon as the default outcome when binocular correspondence cannot be established. The theory posits the existence of monocular and binocular neurons arrayed within a functional processing module, with monocular neurons playing a crucial role in signaling the stimulus conditions instigating rivalry and generating inhibitory signals to implement suppression. Suppression is conceived as a local process happening in parallel over the entire cortical representation of the binocular visual field. The strength of inhibition causing suppression is related to the size of the pool of monocular neurons innervated by the suppressed eye, and the duration of a suppression phase is attributed to the strength of excitation generated by the suppressed stimulus. The theory is compared with three other contemporary theories of binocular rivalry. The article closes with a discussion of some of the unresolved problems related to the theory.     

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.     

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.     

Binocular rivalry and stereoscopic depth perception

An investigation was made of stimulus factors causing retinal rivalry or allowing stereoscopic depth perception, given a requisite positional disparity. It is shown that similar colour information can be “filtered” out from both eyes; that stereopsis is not incompatible with rivalry and suppression of one aspect of the stimulus, and that the strongest cue for perception of stereoscopic depth is intensity difference at the boundaries of the figures in the same direction at each eye. Identity of colour can also act as a cue for stereopsis. The brightness of different monocular figures seen in the stereoscope in different combinations was estimated by a matching technique, and it is suggested that the perceived brightness is a compromise between the monocular brightness difference between figure and ground seen in relation to the binocular fused background, and the mean brightness of the figures. The results are discussed in terms of neurophysiological “on,” “off” and continuous response fibres.     

Amplitude of visual suppression during the control of binocular rivalry

To investigate the precise mechanism of control of binocular rivalry, Ss were instructed to attend actively to whichever pattern was momentarily in the nonsuppression phase. Test stimuli were presented tachistoscopically for recognition in either phase of rivalry. Because the differential recognition between nonsuppressed and suppressed phases was no greater for an active condition than for a passive viewing condition, it was concluded that control is not mediated by varying the amplitude of the suppression effect. This result was consistent with control that is exercised by selecting the eye to receive a constant amplitude suppression. In addition, it was found that visual sensitivity of rivalry nonsuppression and nonrivalry were the same for the ocular dominant eye but different for the nondominant eye.     

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.     

Binocular rivalry and semantic processing: out of sight, out of mind

Previous studies of binocular rivalry have shown that some aspects of a phenomenally suppressed stimulus remain available for visual analysis. The question remains, however, whether this analysis extends to the case of semantic information. This experiment examines that question using a semantic-priming paradigm in which prime words were briefly flashed to an eye during either dominance or suppression phases of binocular rivalry. Reaction times on a lexical-decision task were significantly shortened (the semantic-priming effect) only when prime words were presented to an eye during dominance; suppression acted to impair word recognition and to eliminate semantic priming. These results are inconsistent with certain cognitive models of binocular rivalry.     

Contralateral enhancement and suppression of vibrotactile sensation

A psychophysical matching procedure was used to measure the effect of a conditioning stimulus on the vibrotactile sensation magnitude of a test stimulus. When both stimuli were applied to the thenar eminence of the same hand, the conditioning stimulus enhanced the sensation magnitude of the test stimulus. Enhancement was also observed when the test stimulus was on the thenar eminence and the conditioning stimulus was either on the contralateral thenar eminence, the ipsilateral middle finger, or the contralateral middle finger. When the conditioning and test stimuli were applied to separate sites, enhancement was maximal when At between the stimuli was 150 msec. At Ate less than 100 msec, suppression was observed. Enhancement and suppression were observed only when the frequencies of the two stimuli were within the same vibrotactile information processing channel.     

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.     

The subliminal perception of movement and the 'suppression' in binocular rivalry.

An analogy is drawn between the perceptual limitation that characterizes the dichotic listening paradigm and the 'suppression' that occurs in binocular rivalry when different stimuli are presented to the two eyes. An experiment is reported which focuses on the fate of the information residing in a suppressed eye (unattended channel) during binocular rivalry. It is demonstrated that the temporal course of rivalry is sensitive to the presence of a subliminal moving stimulus within the currently suppressed field. The effects are seen to confirm a literal interpretation of Levelt's (1966) thesis which relates changes in the 'stimulus strength' of a rivalling field to subsequent changes in the temporal course of the phenomenon. This interpretation is consistent with the hypothesis that, despite phenomenal suppression, a full analysis is undertaken on the currently non-dominant stimulus. The data are related to models of selective attention, and to the notion that there are parallel visual systems.     

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.     

Processing of invisible stimuli: advantage of upright faces and recognizable words in overcoming interocular suppression

Familiar and recognizable stimuli enjoy an advantage of predominance during binocular rivalry, and this advantage is usually attributed to their enhanced processing during the dominant phase. However, do familiar and recognizable stimuli have an advantage in breaking suppression? Test images were gradually introduced to one eye to compete against a standard high-contrast dynamic noise pattern presented to the other eye. Results showed that an upright face took less time than an upside-down face to gain dominance against the identical suppression noise. Results also showed that for Chinese readers, Chinese characters were faster to gain dominance than Hebrew words, whereas for Hebrew readers, the reverse was true. These results suggest that familiar and recognizable information, even when suppressed and invisible, is processed differently from unfamiliar information. Apparently, high-level information about visual form does contribute to the strength of a stimulus during its suppressed phase.     

Dichoptic reading: The role of meaning in binocular rivalry

These experiments sought to determine whether meaning influences the predominance of one eye during binocular rivalry. In Experiment 1, observers tried to read meaningful text under conditions in which different text streams were viewed by the two eyes, a situation mimicking the classic dichotic listening paradigm. Dichoptic reading proved impossible even when the text streams were printed in different fonts or when one eye received a 5-sec advantage. Under non-rivalry conditions, the observers were able to read text presented at twice the rate used for dichoptic testing, indicating that cognitive overload does not limit performance under conditions of rivalry. In Experiment 2, observers were required to detect repeated presentations of a probe target within a string of characters presented to one eye. Although this task was easily performed under monocular viewing conditions, it proved difficult when the two eyes received dissimilar character strings. This was true regardless of whether the probed eye viewed nonsense strings, real words, or meaningful text. In a condition designed to encourage semantic processing of one eye’s view, the observers were required to detect animal names as well as to detect the probe target. Performance remained inferior to that measured under monocular conditions. Even the observer’s own name proved insufficient to influence the predominance of one eye under conditions of dichoptic stimulation. When two text strings were physically superimposed and viewed monocularly, essentially no probes were detected, indicating that the failure to see some probes during rivalry reflects a limitation unique to dichoptic viewing. These results contradict theories attributing binocular rivalry to an attentional process that operates on monocular inputs that have received refined analysis. This conclusion may be limited to rival stimuli whose meaning is defined linguistically, not structurally.     

Analysis of temporal suppression mechanism in binocular rivalry

A method for analyzing the temporal suppression mechanism in binocular rivalry is described. A test pattern was presented to one eye and a suppressing pattern to the other eye after varying time intervals. The subject was instructed to report the frequency of nonsuppression phases of the test pattern immediately after presentation of the suppressing pattern. Analysis indicated that the test pattern was never suppressed at the 0-msec. stimulus onset asynchrony and the nonsuppression probabilities decreased as the onset asynchrony increased. Moreover, resistivity to contralateral suppression was greater when the test pattern was projected to the dominant eye.     

Stereomotion speed perception is contrast dependent

The effect of contrast on the perception of stimulus speed for stereomotion and monocular lateral motion was investigated for successive matches in random-dot stimuli. The familiar 'Thompson effect'--that a reduction in contrast leads to a reduction in perceived speed--was found in similar proportions for both binocular images moving in depth, and for monocular images translating laterally. This result is consistent with the idea that the monocular motion system has a significant input to the stereomotion system, and dominates the speed percept for approaching motion.