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 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 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.     

Predominance of ground over ceiling surfaces in binocular rivalry

The superiority of ground surfaces over ceiling surfaces in determining the representation of the visual world, demonstrated in several studies of visual perception and visual search, has been attributed to a preference for top-away projections resulting from ecological constraints. Recent research on binocular rivalry indicates that ecological constraints affect predominance relations. The present study considered whether there is a difference in predominance between ground and ceiling surfaces. In Experiment 1, we examined whether a ground surface would dominate a ceiling surface when one surface was presented to each eye. In Experiment 2, we used an eye-swapping paradigm to determine whether a ground surface would come to dominance faster than a ceiling surface when presented to the suppressed eye. The eye-swapping paradigm was used again in Experiment 3, but the ground and ceiling planes were replaced with frontal planes with similar variations in texture density. The results of these experiments indicate that ground surfaces are predominant over ceiling surfaces, with this predominance affecting both the dominance and suppression phases of binocular rivalry. This superiority of ground planes is independent of image properties such as the increase or decrease in texture density from the lower half to the upper half of the images.     

Illusory colors promote interocular grouping during binocular rivalry

When dissimilar monocular images are presented separately to each of a person’s eyes, these images compete for visual dominance, with dominance of one image or the other alternating over time. While this phenomenon, called binocular rivalry, transpires, local image features distributed over space and between the eyes can become visually dominant at the same time; the resulting global figure implicates interocular grouping. Previous studies have suggested that color tends to influence the incidence of global dominance; in this study, we assess whether illusory color can also influence interocular grouping. To test this, we exploited the McCollough effect, an orientation-contingent color aftereffect induced by prolonged adaptation to different colors paired with different orientations. Results show that during binocular rivalry, illusory colors induced by the McCollough adaptation enhance strong interocular grouping relative to preadaptation testing, to an extent comparable in strength with the enhancement induced by real colors. Thus, illusory colors that are present only in an observer’s mind are sufficiently potent to influence low-level visual processes such as binocular rivalry.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Perceived depth in the 'sieve effect' and exclusive binocular rivalry

An impression of a surface seen through holes is created when one fuses dichoptic pairs of discs, with one member of each pair black and the other member white. This is referred to as the 'sieve effect'. The stimulus contains no positional disparities. Howard (1995, Perception 24 67-74) noted qualitatively that the sieve effect occurs when the rivalrous regions are within the range of sizes, contrasts, and relative sizes where exclusive rivalry occurs, rather than binocular lustre, stimulus combination, or dominant rivalry. This suggests that perceived depth in the sieve effect should be at a maximum when exclusive rivalry is most prominent. We used a disparity depth probe to measure the magnitude of perceived depth in the sieve effect as a function of the sizes, contrasts, and relative sizes of the rivalrous regions. We also measured the rate of exclusive rivalry of the same stimuli under the same conditions. Perceived depth and the rate of exclusive rivalry were affected in the same way by each of the three variables. Furthermore, perceived depth and the rate of exclusive rivalry were affected in the same way by changes in vergence angle, although the configuration of the stimulus surface was held constant. These findings confirm the hypothesis that the sieve effect is correlated with the incidence of exclusive rivalry.     

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.     

Integration of motion parallax with binocular disparity specifying different surface shapes

We investigated the interaction between motion parallax and binocular disparity cues in the perception of surface shape and depth magnitude by the use of the random dot stimuli in which these cues specified sinusoidal depth surfaces undulating with different spatial frequencies. When ambiguous motion parallax is inconsistent with unambiguous disparity cue, the reasonable solution for the visual system is to convert the motion signal to the flow on the surface specified by disparity. Two experiments, however, found that the visual system did not always use this reasonable solution; observers often perceived the surface specified by a composite of the two cues, or the surface specified by parallax alone. In the perception of this composite of the two cues, the apparent depth magnitude increased with the increase of the depth magnitude specified by both cues. This indicates that the visual system can combine the depth magnitude information from parallax and disparity in an additive fashion. The interference with parallax by disparity implies that the parallax processing is not independent of the disparity processing.     

Rivalry with continuous and flashed stimuli as a measure of ocular dominance across the visual field

Two measures of sensory ocular dominance were compared. Both involved dichoptic presentation of orthogonal gratings--a situation which results in binocular rivalry. The gratings were presently briefly in experiment 1 and continuously in experiment 2 and by the predominance of one grating over the other a quantitative estimation of ocular dominance was obtained in both cases. Comparison of the results showed that (a) binocular rivalry suppression was present for exposures of 250 ms and (b) the briefly presented gratings were a more sensitive test for ocular dominance than conventional continuously presented stimuli. The variation of dominance over the horizontal meridian of the visual field was considered. For many subjects a consistent different in the ocular dominance in the two halves of the visual field, and therefore of the cortex, was found. Some showed dominance of the ipsilateral eye in each hemisphere while others showed dominance of the contralateral eye. It was found that there is, in fact, a continuum of types of dominance pattern amongst individuals.     

Binocular rivalry: a window into emotional processing in aging

Previous binocular rivalry studies with younger adults have shown that emotional stimuli dominate perception over neutral stimuli. Here we investigated the effects of age on patterns of emotional dominance during binocular rivalry. Participants performed a face/house rivalry task where the emotion of the face (happy, angry, neutral) and orientation (upright, inverted) of the face and house stimuli were varied systematically. Age differences were found with younger adults showing a general emotionality effect (happy and angry faces were more dominant than neutral faces) and older adults showing inhibition of anger (neutral faces were more dominant than angry faces) and positivity effects (happy faces were more dominant than both angry and neutral faces). Age differences in dominance patterns were reflected by slower rivalry rates for both happy and angry compared to neutral face/house pairs in younger adults, and slower rivalry rates for happy compared to both angry and neutral face/house pairs in older adults. Importantly, these patterns of emotional dominance and slower rivalry rates for emotional-face/house pairs disappeared when the stimuli were inverted. This suggests that emotional valence, and not low-level image features, were responsible for the emotional bias in both age groups. Given that binocular rivalry has a limited role for voluntary control, the findings imply that anger suppression and positivity effects in older adults may extend to more automatic tasks.     

Subjective value determines initial dominance in binocular rivalry

Does subjective reward value influence early visual perception? During binocular rivalry, one eye receives an image that is incompatible with the image the other eye receives. People consciously experience perceiving one image; the other image is suppressed from conscious awareness. We tested if subjective value functions as an endogenous influence (i.e., one internal to the perceiver) on dominance during rivalry. Images associated with rewards achieved initial perceptual dominance more often than images associated with cost (Study 1, Methods, Participants and procedures, Stimuli and presentation, Experimental counterbalancing conditions, Results, Study 2, Methods, Participants, Stimuli and presentation, Procedure, Results, Reports of letters v. numbers seen as initial percept, Reports of dot location, Study 3). Value facilitated perception of rewarding images but did not inhibit perception of costly images (Study 3). Additionally, when rewards benefited a disliked person, no bias in perceptual dominance was observed. Subjective value biased dominance despite accuracy incentives and was not explained by frequency of exposure, implicit learning, response bias, or task-specific accessibility. We discuss implications for the influence of motivated influences on perception, a phenomenon we call wishful seeing.     

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.     

A common oscillator for perceptual rivalries?

Perceptual rivalry is an oscillation of conscious experience that takes place despite univarying. if ambiguous, sensory input. Much current interest is focused on the controversy over the neural site of binocular rivalry, a variety of perceptual rivalry for which a number of different cortical regions have been implicated. Debate continues over the relative role of higher levels of processing compared with primary visual cortex and the suggestion that different forms of rivalry involve different cortical areas. Here we show that the temporal pattern of disappearance and reappearance in motion-induced blindness (MIB) (Bonneh et al, 2001 Nature 411 798-801) is highly correlated with the pattern of oscillation reported during binocular rivalry in the same individual. This correlation holds over a wide range of inter-individual variation. Temporal similarity in the two phenomena was strikingly confirmed by the effects of the hallucinogen LSD, which produced the same, extraordinary, pattern of increased rhythmicity in both kinds of perceptual oscillation. Furthermore. MIB demonstrates the two properties previously considered characteristic of binocular rivalry. Namely the distribution of dominance periods can be approximated by a gamma distribution and, in line with Levelt's second proposition of binocular rivalry, predominance of one perceptual phase can be increased through a reduction in the predominance time of the opposing phase. We conclude that (i) MIB is a form of perceptual rivalry, and (ii) there may be a common oscillator responsible for timing aspects of all forms of perceptual rivalry.     

How context influences predominance during binocular rivalry

Variations in the predominance of an object engaged in binocular rivalry may arise from variations in the durations of dominance phases, suppression phases, or both. Earlier work has shown that the predominance of a binocular rival target is enhanced if that target fits well-via common color, orientation, or motion-with its surrounding objects. In the present experiments, the global context outside of the region of rivalry was changed during rivalry, to learn whether contextual information alters the ability to detect changes in a suppressed target itself. Results indicate that context will maintain the dominance of a rival target, but will not encourage a suppressed target to escape from suppression. Evidently, the fate of the suppressed stimulus is determined by neural events distinct from those responsible for global organization during dominance. To reconcile diverse findings concerning rivalry, it may be important to distinguish between processes responsible for selection of one eye's input for dominance from processes responsible for the implementation and maintenance of suppression.     

An astable multivibrator model of binocular rivalry

The behavior of a neural network model for binocular rivalry is explored through the development of an analogy between it and an electronic astable multivibrator circuit. The model incorporates reciprocal feedback inhibition between signals from the left and the right eyes prior to binocular convergence. The strength of inhibitory coupling determines whether the system undergoes rivalrous oscillations or remains in stable fusion: strong coupling leads to oscillations, weak coupling to fusion. This implies that correlation between spatial patterns presented to the two eyes can affect the strength of binocular inhibition. Finally, computer simulations are presented which show that a reciprocal inhibition model can reproduce the stochastic behavior of rivalry. The model described is a counterexample to claims that reciprocal inhibition models as a class cannot exhibit many of the experimentally observed properties of rivalry.     

Neural bases of binocular rivalry

During binocular rivalry, conflicting monocular images compete for access to consciousness in a stochastic, dynamical fashion. Recent human neuroimaging and psychophysical studies suggest that rivalry entails competitive interactions at multiple neural sites, including sites that retain eye-selective information. Rivalry greatly suppresses activity in the ventral pathway and attenuates visual adaptation to form and motion; nonetheless, some information about the suppressed stimulus reaches higher brain areas. Although rivalry depends on low-level inhibitory interactions, high-level excitatory influences promoting perceptual grouping and selective attention can extend the local dominance of a stimulus over space and time. Inhibitory and excitatory circuits considered within a hybrid model might account for the paradoxical properties of binocular rivalry and provide insights into the neural bases of visual awareness itself.