Motion rivalry impairs motion repulsion.

In their classic study on motion repulsion, Marshak and Sekuler (Science 205 (1979) 1399) reported a repulsion of up to 10 degrees when two different directions of motion were presented dichoptically. However, subjects in that study did not experience binocular rivalry, presumably because of the brief presentation time. In the present study, we measured repulsion during binocular rivalry by requiring subjects to dichoptically view the stimuli until one direction of motion appeared to exclusively dominate the other (Blake, Yu, Lokey, & Norman (1998). J. Cogn. Neurosci., 10, 46-60). We found that motion repulsion was significantly reduced during exclusive dominance. Indeed, after controlling for reference repulsion--the misjudgment of a single direction of motion (Rauber & Treue (1998). Perception, 27, 393-402)--we found no significant motion repulsion during exclusive dominance. These data suggest that motion repulsion may require the perception, rather than merely the physical presence, of multiple directions.     

Effects of attention on motion repulsion

Motion repulsion involves interaction between two directions of motion. Since attention is known to bias interactions among different stimuli, we investigated the effect of attentional tasks on motion repulsion. We used two overlapping sets of random dots moving in different directions. When subjects had to detect a small speed-change or luminance change for dots along one direction, the repulsive influence from the other direction was significantly reduced compared with the control case without attentional tasks. However, when the speed-change could occur to either direction such that subjects had to attend both directions to detect the change, motion repulsion was not different from the control. A further experiment showed that decreasing the difficulty of the attentional task resulted in the disappearance of the attentional effect in the case of attention to one direction. Finally, over a wide range of contrasts for the unattended direction, attention reduced repulsion measured with the attended direction. These results are consistent with the physiological finding that strong attention to one direction of motion reduces inhibitory effects from the other direction.     

Effect of binocular rivalry suppression on the motion aftereffect.

The relative loci within the visual system of the site of the motion aftereffect (MAE) and the site of binocular rivalry suppression was inferred by measuring the magnitude of the MAE when the inducing motion was phenomenally suppressed for > 50 per cent of the inspection period. The MAE magnitude was a function of the duration of physical impingement of the inducing stimulus; the state of suppression exerted no effect, thereby implying that the site of suppression does not occur before the site of the MAE. This result, together with other data, is interpreted to mean that the site of suppression is cortical.     

Reference repulsion in the categorical perception of biological motion

Perceiving biological motion is important for understanding the intentions and future actions of others. Perceiving an approaching person’s behavior may be particularly important, because such behavior often precedes social interaction. To this end, the visual system may devote extra resources for perceiving an oncoming person’s heading. If this were true, humans should show increased sensitivity for perceiving approaching headings, and as a result, a repulsive perceptual effect around the categorical boundary of leftward/rightward motion. We tested these predictions and found evidence for both. First, observers were especially sensitive to the heading of an approaching person; variability in estimates of a person’s heading decreased near the category boundary of leftward/rightward motion. Second, we found a repulsion effect around the category boundary; a person walking approximately toward the observer was perceived as being repelled away from straight ahead. This repulsive effect was greatly exaggerated for perception of a very briefly presented person or perception of a chaotic crowd, suggesting that repulsion may protect against categorical errors when sensory noise is high. The repulsion effect with a crowd required integration of local motion and human form, suggesting an origin in high-level stages of visual processing. Similar repulsive effects may underlie categorical perception with other social features. Overall, our results show that a person’s direction of walking is categorically perceived, with improved sensitivity at the category boundary and a concomitant repulsion effect.     

The relationship between binocular rivalry and strabismic suppression

Increment-threshold spectral sensitivity functions were determined for normal observers during binocular rivalry and for esotropic observers during strabismic suppression and under viewing conditions that normally induce binocular rivalry. Depending on the spatial and temporal properties of the test stimulus, the normal observers exhibited a wavelength-specific loss in sensitivity during the suppression phase of rivalry, which suggests that binocular rivalry differentially attenuates the sensitivity of the chromatic mechanisms relative to the luminance mechanisms. In contrast, regardless of the test stimulus dimensions, the esotropic observers did not manifest a wavelength-specific loss in sensitivity either during strabismic suppression or under conditions that normally induce binocular rivalry. The different patterns of suppression shown by the normal and esotropic subjects suggest that strabismic observers do not demonstrate normal binocular rivalry, and that strabismic suppression and normal binocular rivalry suppression are mediated by different neural mechanisms.     

Integration of motion information during binocular rivalry.

When two moving gratings are superimposed in normal viewing they often combine to form a pattern that moves with a single direction of motion. Here, we investigated whether the same mechanism underlies pattern motion when drifting gratings are presented independently to the two eyes. We report that, with relatively large circular grating patches (4 deg), there are periods of monocular dominance in which one eye's orientation alone is perceived, usually moving orthogonal to the contours (component motion). But, during the transitions from one monocular view to the other, a fluid mosaic is perceived, consisting of contiguous patches, each containing contours of only one of the gratings. This entire mosaic often appears to move in a single direction (pattern motion), just as when two gratings are literally superimposed. Although this implies that motion signals from the perceptually suppressed grating continue to influence the perception of motion, an alternative possibility is that it reflects a strategy that involves integrating directional information from the contiguous single-grating patches. To test between these possibilities, we performed a second experiment with very small grating stimuli that were about the same size as the contiguous single-grating patches in the mosaic (1-deg diameter). Despite the fact that the form of only one grating was perceived, we report that pattern motion was still perceived on about one third of trials. Moreover, a decrease in the occurrence of pattern motion was apparent when the contrast and spatial frequency of the gratings were made more different from each other. This phenomenon clearly demonstrates an independent binocular interaction for form and motion.     

Both monocular and binocular signals contribute to motion rivalry

There is an ongoing debate on whether binocular rivalry involves competition among monocular cells or binocular cells. We investigated this issue psychophysically with two specially designed test stimuli. One test stimulus contained monocular motion signals but greatly reduced binocular motion signals, while the other contained binocular motion signals but no monocular motion signals. For comparison, we also employed a normal rivalrous control containing both monocular and binocular motion signals, and a non-rivalrous flicker-noise control with neither monocular nor binocular motion signals. We found that binocular rivalry for the two test stimuli was significantly reduced compared with the normal rivalrous control, but not completely eliminated compared with the non-rivalrous control. Therefore, both monocular and binocular motion signals appear to contribute to motion rivalry, suggesting that motion rivalry must involve competition among both monocular and binocular cells.     

Contrast sensitivity of form and motion discrimination during binocular rivalry

Binocular rivalry, which is induced by presenting the two eyes with incompatible stimuli, results in periods where one eye's stimulus is seen and the other stimulus is suppressed. We measured the depth of suppression in two ways, with very different results. First, two similar forms were briefly presented to one eye: the difference in shapes required to discriminate the forms was substantially greater during suppression than during dominance. Second, the two forms were made sufficiently different in shape to be easily distinguishable at high contrast, and contrast was lowered to find the threshold for discrimination of the forms. Contrast sensitivity did not differ between the suppression and dominance states. These results were replicated with a motion discrimination task: suppression markedly worsened the ability to distinguish increases from decreases in speed but did not elevate the minimum contrast required for the same task. We interpret the results in terms of steep contrast-response functions in visual cortex beyond the primary area.     

A binocular rivalry study of motion perception in the human brain

The relationship between brain activity and conscious visual experience is central to our understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying perception. Binocular rivalry, where monocular stimuli compete for perceptual dominance, has been previously used to dissociate the constant stimulus from the varying percept. We report here fMRI results from humans experiencing binocular rivalry under a dichoptic stimulation paradigm that consisted of two drifting random dot patterns with different motion coherence. Each pattern had also a different color, which both enhanced rivalry and was used for reporting which of the two patterns was visible at each time. As the perception of the subjects alternated between coherent motion and motion noise, we examined the effect that these alternations had on the strength of the MR signal throughout the brain. Our results demonstrate that motion perception is able to modulate the activity of several of the visual areas which are known to be involved in motion processing. More specifically, in addition to area V5 which showed the strongest modulation, a higher activity during the perception of motion than during the perception of noise was also clearly observed in areas V3A and LOC, and less so in area V3. In previous studies, these areas had been selectively activated by motion stimuli but whether their activity reflects motion perception or not remained unclear; here we show that they are involved in motion perception as well. The present findings therefore suggest a lack of a clear distinction between 'processing' versus 'perceptual' areas in the brain, but rather that the areas involved in the processing of a specific visual attribute are also part of the neuronal network that is collectively responsible for its perceptual representation.     

Binocular rivalry: a time dependence of eye and stimulus contributions

In binocular rivalry, the visual percept alternates stochastically between two dichoptically presented stimuli. It is established that both processes related to the eye of origin and binocular, stimulus-related processes account for these fluctuations in conscious perception. Here we studied how their relative contributions vary over time. We applied brief disruptions to rivalry displays, concurrent with an optional eye swap, at varying time intervals after one stimulus became visible (dominant). We found that early in a dominance phase the dominant eye determined the percept by stabilizing its own contribution (regardless of the stimulus), with an additional yet weaker stabilizing contribution of the stimulus (regardless of the eye). Their stabilizing contributions declined in parallel with time so that late in a dominance phase the stimulus (and in some cases also the eye-based) contribution turned negative, favoring a perceptual (or ocular) switch. Our findings show that depending on the time, first processes related to the eye of origin and then those related to the stimulus can have a greater net influence on the stability of the conscious percept. Their co-varying change may be due to feedback from image- to eye-of-origin representations.     

Interocular transfer of the motion after-effect is not reduced by binocular rivalry

Motion after-effects (MAEs) were measured intraocularly (adaptation, test stimuli to same eye) and interocularly (adaptation, test stimuli to opposite eyes) when (a) a rival stimulus caused perceptual suppression of the adaptation stimulus; (b) no rival stimulus was presented for the entire adaptation duration; and (c) non-rival adaptation was limited to the duration and adaptation stimulus was dominant in (a). Intraocular MAEs were greater than interocular MAEs; furthermore, both intraocular and interocular MAEs were similar following conditions (a) and (b) and reduced following (c). This pattern occurred with gratings of 1, 2 and 4c/deg, but not 8c/deg. Data are discussed in terms of mechanisms of rivalry and MAEs.     

On the relation between dichoptic masking and binocular rivalry

When our two eyes view incompatible images, the brain invokes suppressive processes to inhibit one image, and favor the other. Two phenomena are typically observed: dichoptic masking (reduced sensitivity to one image) for brief presentations, and binocular rivalry (alternation between the two images), over longer exposures. However, it is not clear if these two phenomena arise from a common suppressive process. We investigated this by measuring both threshold elevation in simultaneous dichoptic masking and mean percept durations in rivalry, whilst varying relative stimulus orientation. Masking and rivalry showed significant correlations, such that strong masking was associated with long dominance durations. A second experiment suggested that individual differences across both measures are also correlated. These findings are consistent with varying the magnitude of interocular suppression in computational models of both rivalry and masking, and imply the existence of a common suppressive process. Since dichoptic masking has been localised to the monocular neurons of V1, this is a plausible first stage of binocular rivalry.     

Interactions between binocular rivalry and Gestalt formation

A question raised a long time ago in binocular rivalry research is whether the phenomenon of binocular rivalry is purely determined by local stimulus properties or that global stimulus properties also play a role. More specifically: do coherent features in a stimulus influence rivalrous behavior? After decades of underexposure of the subject, recently this question seemed to be answered in the affirmative. This paper presents additional evidence for an influence of coherent features. In an experiment in which eye movements cannot bias conclusions it is demonstrated that Gestalt formation influences binocular rivalry positively, i.e., stronger Gestalts have longer total dominance times. Gestalt formation appears to intervene in the states of dominance ("what"), not directly in the dominance durations ("how long"). This generates questions about the nature of interactions between binocular rivalry and Gestalt formation. Gestalt formation seems to be fed by signals that are generated after binocular convergence and only leaves its mark on binocular rivalry by feedback to monocular channels, a conclusion which has been drawn before by Alais and Blake [Alais, D., & Blake, R. (1998). Interaction between global motion and local binocular rivalry. Vision research 38, 637-644].     

Eye rivalry and object rivalry in the intact and split-brain

Both the eye of origin and the images themselves have been found to rival during binocular rivalry. We presented traditional binocular rivalry stimuli (face to one eye, house to the other) and Diaz-Caneja stimuli (half of each image to each eye) centrally to both a split-brain participant and a control group. With traditional rivalry stimuli both the split-brain participant and age-matched controls perceived more coherent percepts (synchronised across the hemifields) than non-synchrony, but our split-brain participant perceived more non-synchrony than our controls. For rival stimuli in the Diaz-Caneja presentation condition, object rivalry gave way to eye rivalry with all participants reporting more non-synchrony than coherent percepts. We have shown that splitting the stimuli across the hemifields between the eyes leads to greater eye than object rivalry, but that when traditional rival stimuli are split as the result of the severed corpus callosum, traditional rivalry persists but to a lesser extent than in the intact brain. These results suggest that communication between the early visual areas is not essential for synchrony in traditional rivalry stimuli, and that other routes for interhemispheric interactions such as subcortical connections may mediate rivalry in a traditional binocular rivalry condition.     

Binocular motion rivalry in macaque monkeys: eye dominance and tracking eye movements

When the two eyes are exposed to markedly different patterns, perception becomes unstable, falling into oscillations, so that the image of one eye is seen first and then that from the other. With large stimuli the alternation is piecemeal, whilst when small stimuli are used the whole pattern alternates in unison. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a reliable, objective indicator of the perceptual state during binocular rivalry could be developed in the nonhuman primate. Monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were trained to discriminate direction of motion when presented with vertically drifting gratings moving in opposite directions in the two eyes. A high correlation was found between the direction of the slow phase of the optokinetic nystagmus (OKN) elicited by the drifting gratings during rivalry and the direction of motion reported by the monkey even though the gain of the OKN was reduced during rivalry, and the latency was longer. Behavioral eye dominance during rivalry varied significantly over time, between individuals and as a function of interocular contrast differences. Since the direction of tracking eye movements can be used to reliably monitor perceptual state during binocular motion rivalry, the opportunity exists in nonhuman primates to study the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying motion perception during the perceptually ambiguous condition of binocular rivalry.     

The effect of motion adaptation on the position of elements in the visual saltation illusion

The visual saltation illusion--illusory motion induced by presenting elements first to one peripheral location, then to another, in rapid and regular succession--belongs to a class of stimuli for which a difference exists between the physical and perceived positions of elements. Rather than being perceived at their physical location, elements are perceived as traveling smoothly across the area between the two locations. In separate experiments, we examined the distortion to the saltatory path caused by adaptation to an upward drifting grating presented between the two physically stimulated locations (where elements were nonetheless perceived), and at the first location of physical stimulation. Where adaptation occurred between the two sites of physical stimulation, the saltatory path was distorted as if elements had a physical origin at that location; elements perceived as arising from the central location were subject to a motion aftereffect (MAE). Where motion adaptation overlapped the first site of physical stimulation, the saltatory path was affected only for those elements perceived as arising from the first location; elements perceived at the central location (but physically presented at the first site of stimulation) were not subject to an MAE. Our results indicate that the impact of motion adaptation on position is dependent on the perceived, and not the physical, location of elements.     

The dependence of edge displacement thresholds on edge blur, contrast, and displacement distance

Two experiments measured thresholds for discriminating the movement direction of an isolated intensity edge. The luminance profile of the edge took the form of an integrated Gaussian. In the first experiment, displacement thresholds were measured as a function of edge blur width and contrast. In the second experiment, contrast thresholds were measured as a function of edge blur width and displacement. Using the estimated retinal profile of the edge (given the LSF of the display and of the optics of the eye), the data were found to collapse onto a single function relating the maximum spatial luminance gradient defined by the edge to the maximum temporal change in luminance generated by its displacement. There was a direct relationship between the two gradients at threshold, so that lower spatial gradients were paired with smaller temporal changes. Implications for current models of motion detection are examined.     

Influence of viewing distance on aftereffects of moving random pixel arrays

Viewing-distance invariance of visual perception has evolutionary advantages, but it is of necessity limited by spatial and temporal resolution. Even within these resolution limits viewing-distance invariance might not be perfect or even good, but there are remarkably few studies of its precise limits. Here we ask to what extent viewing-distance invariance holds for motion aftereffects (MAEs). There are (at least) two different MAEs: one can be seen on a static test pattern (sMAE) and is tuned to low speeds, the other only becomes manifest on a dynamic noise test stimulus (dMAE) and is sensitive to higher adaptation speeds. We show that each of these MAEs has a limited viewing-distance invariance, the dMAE only for higher screen-speeds and the sMAE only for lower screen-speeds. In both cases upper angular-speed limits shift to higher values for smaller viewing-distances (lower spatial frequencies, larger fields). This upper limit is constant, independent of viewing distance, if expressed in terms of screen-speed. On the other hand the lower speed limit is fixed in angular-speed and variable in screen-speed terms. Explanations for these findings are provided. We show that there is no fixed optimum viewing-distance or optimum angular stimulus-size for either of the two MAEs.     

Probing visual consciousness: rivalry between eyes and images

During binocular rivalry, one stimulus is visible (dominant), while the other stimulus is invisible (suppressed); after a few seconds, perception reverses. To determine whether these alternations involve competition between the eyes or between the images, we measured suppression depth to monocular probes. We did so in conventional rival stimuli and in rival stimuli swapping between the eyes at 1.5 Hz (both sorts of rivalry were shown either with or without 18-Hz flicker). The conventional conditions cause rivalry that could involve either competition between the eyes or between the images or both. The eye-swapping conditions cause rivalry that could involve competition between the images. Probes were either a small spot or a contrast increment to one of the rival stimuli. Using both yes-no and forced-choice procedures, we found that conventional conditions yielded large suppression depth and that eye-swapping conditions yielded small suppression depth. Weak suppression during image rivalry is consistent with conventional rivalry's involving competition between eyes and between images and flicker-and-swap rivalry's involving little, if any competition between eyes and mainly competition between images.