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.     

Symbolic magnitude modulates perceptual strength in binocular rivalry

Basic aspects of magnitude (such as luminance contrast) are directly represented by sensory representations in early visual areas. However, it is unclear how symbolic magnitudes (such as Arabic numerals) are represented in the brain. Here we show that symbolic magnitude affects binocular rivalry: perceptual dominance of numbers and objects of known size increases with their magnitude. Importantly, variations in symbolic magnitude acted like variations in luminance contrast: we found that an increase in numerical magnitude of adding one lead to an equivalent increase in perceptual dominance as a contrast increment of 0.32%. Our results support the claim that magnitude is extracted automatically, since the increase in perceptual dominance came about in the absence of a magnitude-related task. Our findings show that symbolic, acculturated knowledge about magnitude interacts with visual perception and affects perception in a manner similar to lower-level aspects of magnitude such as luminance contrast.     

The site of binocular rivalry suppression.

Two experiments were performed to localize the site of binocular rivalry suppression in relation to the locus of grating adaptation. In one experiment it was found that phenomenal suppression of a high-contrast adaptation grating presented to one eye had no influence on the strength of the threshold-elevation aftereffect measured interocularly. Evidently information about the adaptation grating arrives at the site of the aftereffect (presumably binocular neurons) even during suppression. In a second experiment 60 s of grating adaptation was found to produce a short-term reduction in the predominance of the adapted eye during binocular rivalry. These findings provide converging lines of evidence that suppression occurs at a site in the human visual system after the locus of grating adaptation and, hence, after the striate cortex.     

Aging and the depth of binocular rivalry suppression

Two experiments were designed to examine the effect of aging on the strength of binocular rivalry suppression. To produce rivalry, orthogonally oriented sine-wave luminance gratings were presented dichoptically. The observers were then required either to discriminate the spatial location of a probe spot presented to the dominant or suppressed eye's view or to detect the presence or absence of the probe. The observers in the younger and older age groups exhibited typical rivalry suppression for both tasks (i.e., the probe was more difficult to detect or discriminate when presented to the suppressed eye), but the magnitude of the suppression was significantly larger in the older observers. This increased suppression that accompanies aging can be explained by a reduction in the inhibition produced by the binocular matching circuitry of S. R. Lehky and R. Blake's (1991) model.     

Increment detection thresholds during binocular rivalry suppression

In two experiments, two-choice forced-choice duration thresholds for increment test flashes were estimated during phases of rivalry suppression and nonsuppression and for a nonrivalry monocular control condition. In both experiments thresholds of both eyes of each S were measured and, to maximize correct detections, feedback was given after every trial and Ss were relieved of the task of continually reporting changes in rivalry phases. Results of both experiments support the conclusion that suppression constitutes an elevation in threshold, on the order of .5 log units relative to thresholds found during nonsuppression and monocular conditions. These data, in concert with others, reinforce the general conclusion that rivalry suppression is an inhibitory state that nonselectively attenuates all classes of inputs falling within the spatial boundaries of the suppressed target.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The temporal course of suppression during binocular rivalry

Orthogonally oriented sinusoidal luminance gratings were dichoptically presented to the observers' left and right eyes. During the subsequent binocular rivalry, a small target was briefly presented (4AFC) to probe the strength of interocular suppression at various temporal latencies. Both stationary and moving rivalrous patterns were investigated. The purpose of experiment 1 was to compare the temporal characteristics of stationary and motion rivalry (0 and 1.2 deg s-1), while that of experiment 2 was to examine rivalry suppression for higher speeds (2 and 4 deg s-1). In all cases, it was found that the strength of suppression remained essentially constant throughout a single phase of binocular rivalry. The results of the investigation also revealed that moving rivalrous patterns lead to greater magnitudes of interocular suppression than static patterns. Despite these differences in the strength of suppression, the results of both experiments show that the temporal characteristics of motion and static rivalry are essentially identical.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Seeing it both ways: Openness to experience and binocular rivalry suppression

Openness to experience is characterised by flexible and inclusive cognition. Here we investigated whether this extends to basic visual perception, such that open people combine information more flexibly, even at low-levels of perceptual processing. We used binocular rivalry, where the brain alternates between perceptual solutions and times where neither solution is fully suppressed, mixed percept. Study 1 showed that openness is positively associated with duration of mixed percept and ruled out the possibility of response bias. Study 2 showed that mixed percept increased following a positive mood induction particularly for open people. Overall, the results showed that openness is linked to differences in low-level visual perceptual experience. Further studies should investigate whether this may be driven by common neural processes.     

Afterimages, binocular rivalry, and the temporal properties of dominance and suppression

When different contours are presented to the two eyes, an unstable percept, binocular rivalry, is the result. Parts of each set of contours may be seen but the two sets are not seen in the same place at the same time. The contours need not be physically present. Afterimages will produce binocular rivalry. Normal rivalry can be prevented if intermittent stimulation is used. Previous work has shown that orthogonal gratings, flashed for less than 150 ms and separated by more than 150 ms, will appear to fuse into a plaid or checkerboard pattern. In the present experiment this phenomenon is examined with afterimages used to produce rivalry. This abnormal 'fusion' is seen when negative afterimages are stroboscopically illuminated at less than 5 Hz. The results obtained with afterimages are predictable from the previous results obtained with stimuli external to the eye.     

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.