Eye contact facilitates awareness of faces during interocular suppression

Eye contact captures attention and receives prioritized visual processing. Here we asked whether eye contact might be processed outside conscious awareness. Faces with direct and averted gaze were rendered invisible using interocular suppression. In two experiments we found that faces with direct gaze overcame such suppression more rapidly than faces with averted gaze. Control experiments ruled out the influence of low-level stimulus differences and differential response criteria. These results indicate an enhanced unconscious representation of direct gaze, enabling the automatic and rapid detection of other individuals making eye contact with the observer.     

Binocular summation in detection of contrast flashes

We studied monocular and binocular detection of foveal flashes of different contrast. When background contours were binocularly fused, detectability (d’) of binocular test flashes was, on the average, twice the detectability of monocularly presented flashes. The precise amount of binocular advantage varied with test contrast: binocular improvement exceeded full summation for low test contrast, but fell below full summation at higher test contrasts. In the absence of contours in one eye, background luminances are not expected to sum, yet binocular detection is an average of 41.5% better than monocular detection. This indicates a difference in the functional organization of the fused binocular channel and a monocular channel.     

Binocular summation in the evoked cortical potential

Computer-averaged evoked potentials were recorded from six subjects presented with flashes under conditions of binocular and monocular viewing, with a device fitted over each eye to produce ganzfeld conditions. Tests were run with red light and with blue. Analysis of the evoked potentials indicates a substantially larger amplitude with binocular stimulation.     

Binocular summation of equal-energy flashes of unequal duration

To determine if binocular summation occurs when increment flashes are of equal energy (Bloch’s law) but unequal in luminance-duration parameters, three Ss made temporal forced-choice judgments: (1) monocularly, (2) binocularly when the flashes to each eye were identical, (3) binocularly when the flashes to each eye were of equal energy but different in terms of their luminance and duration parameters, and (4) binocularly when flashes to each eye were separated by 100 msec. Binocular detection rates were consistently superior to monocular detection rates. Similarity in performance between Conditions 2 and 3 indicates that the binocular visual system responds only to the total energy of each monocular flash. The data from two Ss reveal that binocular performance was greater than that predicted on the basis of probability summation.     

Binocular information summation and the serial processing model

An experiment was performed to ascertain whether a particular member of the class of sequential processing models (Estes & Taylor, 1964; Townsend, 1966) should be further developed in terms of the contributions of information from the separate eyes. Using the detection paradigm (Estes & Taylor, 1964), nine Ss were each run 576 trials under each of three viewing conditions: (a) monocular left, (b) monocular right, and (c) binocular, after four days of practice and calibration. The serial processing model was used to make predictions for three possible cases of binocular information summation: (a) complete independence of the monocular channels, (b) partial independence of the monocular channels and (c) complete dependence in the monocular channels. Complete dependence provided the best fit to the data with a possible stress on use of a “best” eye, but a marginal level of significance was obtained between a simple average of monocular performance and binocular performance with transformed scores. Thus, although there seems to be little or no information summation in terms of the present model of multi-symbol perception, follow-up experiments were suggested to further delineate monocular-binocular relationships in the detection paradigm.     

Selective attention to stimulus features modulates interocular suppression

Psychological and neurophysiological studies have shown that attention modulates various sorts of perceptual processing. Here, we report that attention affects the perceptual dominance of binocular rivalry. Experiments using a dichoptic masking paradigm revealed that when an observer was attending to one of the two orientations of the elements of a monocular texture, a texture briefly presented to the opposite eye suppressed the perception of the elements with the attended orientation, while the elements with the orientation which was ignored sustained their dominance. Moreover, subsequent experiments indicated that the suppression depended on the orientation of the texture elements constituting the mask, but was independent of their locations. These results suggest that attention to specific features modulates interocular suppression in a mode which is different from that found in a previous study [Ooi and He, 1999 Perception 28 551 -574].     

Binocular fusion and contour suppression

Data from three separate investigations are presented to support the conclusion that suppression of visual contours occurs during binocular fusion of identical figures. These data are discussed in relation to examples of confirming and disconfirming results of other investigators.     

Binocular summation in the perception of form at brief durations

Visual form identification at brief durations was studied under: (a) monocular presentation; (b) dichopic presentation where the same form was presented successively on noncorresponding areas; and (c) dichopic presentation where the same form was presented on corresponding areas simultaneously and successively. Form identification for noncorresponding area dichopic presentation was at the level to be expected from 2independent chances to perceive. Both simultaneous and successive dichopic presentation on corresponding areas gave identification accuracy significantly above the level predicted by the assumption of independence. However, the binocular summation was not complete. When the same amount of energy entering the visual system in a binocular presentation was given in a monocular stimulation, the latter condition gave significantly better identification.     

Binocular unmasking with unequal interocular contrast: The case for multiple Cyclopean eyes

Under certain conditions, the detection threshold for a sinusoidal grating embedded in a noisy background may be an order of magnitude lower when binocular cues are available than when monocular cues only are present. Such binocular unmasking occurs only when the degree of interocular disparity for the target differs from that of the background. Two classes of models have been advanced to account for such unmasking. The first assumes that orientation-specific, spatial frequency channels in each eye encode the amplitude and phase of the spatial frequency component of the pattern the channel is tuned to detect. Thus, a difference in interocular disparity between target and background could result in interocular amplitude and/or phase differences in left- and right-eye spatial frequency channels. When, however, there are no disparity differences between target and background, there will be no interocular differences in amplitude and phase in the left- and right-eye channels. In this model, then, binocular unmasking reflects the binocular system’s ability to respond to interocular amplitude and/or phase differences in the patterns presented to the two eyes. In the second class of models, it is assumed that the left and right-eye patterns are first summed to form a “Cyclopean” eye. In these models, detection depends on the effect this summation process has on the power spectrum of the summated patterns. To decide between these two classes of models, we observed the occurrence of binocular unmasking when (1) the contrast of masker and signal was varied identically in both eyes and (2) the contrast of masker and signal was varied in one eye only. Consistent with our previous research, we found that the results can be accounted for in terms of a linear summation model of binocular unmasking; the alternative interocular phase detection model was disproved. The implications of these findings for binocular contrast summation in the absence of visual noise are discussed.     

Binocular summation in the perception of form at brief durations

Visual form identification at brief durations was studied under: (a) monocular presentation; (b) dichopic presentation where the same form was presented successively on noncorresponding areas; and (c) dichopic presentation where the same form was presented on corresponding areas simultaneously and successively. Form identification for noncorresponding area dichopic presentation was at the level to be expected from 2 independent chances to perceive. Both simultaneous and successive dichopic presentation on corresponding areas gave identification accuracy significantly above the level predicted by the assumption of independence. However, the binocular summation was not complete. When the same amount of energy entering the visual system in a binocular presentation was given in a monocular stimulation, the latter condition gave significantly better identification.     

Binocular unmasking with unequal interocular contrast: the case for multiple Cyclopean eyes.

Under certain conditions, the detection threshold for a sinusoidal grating embedded in a noisy background may be an order of magnitude lower when binocular cues are available than when monocular cues only are present. Such binocular unmasking occurs only when the degree of interocular disparity for the target differs from that of the background. Two classes of models have been advanced to account for such unmasking. The first assumes that orientation-specific, spatial frequency channels in each eye encode the amplitude and phase of the spatial frequency component of the pattern the channel is tuned to detect. Thus, a difference in interocular disparity between target and background could result in interocular amplitude and/or phase differences in left- and right-eye spatial frequency channels. When, however, there are no disparity differences between target and background, there will be no interocular differences in amplitude and phase in the left- and right-eye channels. In this model, then, binocular unmasking reflects the binocular system's ability to respond to interocular amplitude and/or phase differences in the patterns presented to the two eyes. In the second class of models, it is assumed that the left- and right-eye patterns are first summed to form a "Cyclopean" eye. In these models, detection depends on the effect this summation process has on the power spectrum of the summated patterns. To decide between these two classes of models, we observed the occurrence of binocular unmasking when (1) the contrast of masker and signal was varied identically in both eyes and (2) the contrast of masker and signal was varied in one eye only. Consistent with our previous research, we found that the results can be accounted for in terms of a linear summation model of binocular unmasking; the alternative interocular phase detection model was disproved. The implications of these findings for binocular contrast summation in the absence of visual noise are discussed.     

Binocular summation of chromatic changes as measured by visual reaction time

We determined visual reaction times to monocular and binocular changes in the luminance of isochromatic stimuli and to monocular and binocular changes in the color of isoluminant stimuli. Two isoluminant color changes were tested: chromatic variations along the red-green axis of Boynton's (1986) two-stage color vision model and chromatic variations along the yellow-blue axis of the same model. The results indicate a greater degree of binocular summation for luminance change than for color change. This result was largely independent of the motor component of reaction time.     

Binocular single vision achieved by fusion and suppression

The occurrences of fusion and suppression were determined from stereograms which produced two retinal images located at equal distances but in opposite directions from the fovea. Subjects reported whether the dichoptic stimulus appeared single or not, and if single whether it appeared in the center of the visual field. The report of centrality is predicted by the fusion theory of single vision and that of noncentrality by the suppression theory. Experiment 1, with eight subjects, showed that for small disparities perceived singleness was the percept predicted by the fusion theory; for larger disparities, the percepts could sometimes be predicted by the fusion theory and other times by the suppression theory. Experiment 2, with 16 subjects, showed that with larger stimuli the percept predicted by the fusion theory is more likely to occur. Experiment 3, with four subjects, showed that the centrality was reported when the stimuli were presented for 100 msec. This result provided support for our interpretation that the centrality reports in Experiments 1 and 2 were not due to fixation error and suppression.     

Binocular fusion: A test of the suppression theory

Binocular fusion may be due to interocular inhibitory suppression, an hypothesis difficult to evaluate by phenomenal inspection. A test probe method (reaction time to a light pulse) was used to measure visual sensitivity during binocular rivalry and fusion. The absence of inhibitory effects during fusion fai Is to support the suppression theory of fusion.     

Binocular fusion: A test of the suppression theory

Binocular fusion may be due to interocular inhibitory suppression, an hypothesis difficult to evaluate by phenomenal inspection. A test probe method (reaction time to a light pulse) was used to measure visual sensitivity during binocular rivalry and fusion. The absence of inhibitory effects during fusion fails to support the suppression theory of fusion.     

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.     

Longer is not better: nonconscious overstimulation reverses priming influences under interocular suppression

Previous research has shown that stimuli rendered invisible through masking can be sufficiently processed to induce nonconscious influences and facilitate subsequent recognition. However, masking paradigms are methodologically restricted such that stimuli cannot be presented for longer than a few tens of milliseconds, potentially restricting the strength of nonconscious influences. By adapting a masked face repetition priming paradigm to a recent interocular suppression method, we investigated whether longer periods of invisible prime stimulation lead to larger nonconscious influences on subsequent recognition. Surprisingly, we found that while brief periods of invisible prime stimulation result in classical facilitation priming, long periods of invisible stimulation lead to negative priming influences, reflecting impairment of subsequent recognition. In contrast, when the prime was visible, longer exposure resulted in classical facilitation effects, revealing qualitative differences between conscious and nonconscious processes. Altogether, the present findings reveal the existence of a nonconscious overstimulation cost, as well as an important dissociation between conscious and nonconscious processing.