Perceptual dominance during binocular rivalry is prolonged by a dynamic surround

We examined whether dynamic stimulation that surrounds a rival target influences perceptual alternations during binocular rivalry. We presented a rival target surrounded by dynamic random-dot patterns to both eyes, and measured dominance durations for each eye’s rival target. We found that rival target dominance durations were longer when surrounds were dynamic than when they were static or absent. Additionally, prolonged dominance durations were more apparent when the dynamic surround was alternately presented between the two eyes than when it was presented simultaneously to both eyes. These results indicate that dynamic stimulation that surrounds a rival target plays a role in maintaining the current perceptual state, and causes less perceptual alternations during binocular rivalry. Our findings suggest that dynamic signals on the retina may suppress rivalry, and thus provide useful information for stabilizing perceptions in daily life.     

Compound binocular rivalry

Binocular rivalry was examined with random dot patterns consisting of three colours: red, green and grey. The microstructure of the patterns was defined by the individual dots, and the correspondence between the microstructures in the two eyes was manipulated. The macrostructures were defined by the distributions of red, green and grey dots over the displays, so that they consisted of orthogonally striped patterns. The degree of correspondence between the microstructures was varied in Expt 1, together with the spatial frequency of the microstructure. Rivalry periods of the macrostructures were briefer when the microstructures were in correspondence, In Expt 2 the spatial frequencies of the macrostructures were varied. The lower spatial frequency predominated for longer than the higher. The results are discussed in terms of independent pathways for corresponding and rivalry stimulation. In addition a stimulus pairing that produces clear dichoptic colour mixtures is presented.     

The influence of chromatic context on binocular color rivalry: perception and neural representation

The predominance of rivalrous targets is affected by surrounding context when stimuli rival in orientation, motion or color. This study investigated the influence of chromatic context on binocular color rivalry. The predominance of rivalrous chromatic targets was measured in various surrounding contexts. The first experiment showed that a chromatic surround's influence was stronger when the surround was uniform or a grating with luminance contrast (chromatic/black grating) compared to an equiluminant grating (chromatic/white). The second experiment revealed virtually no effect of the orientation of the surrounding chromatic context, using chromatically rivalrous vertical gratings. These results are consistent with a chromatic representation of the context by a non-oriented, chromatically selective and spatially antagonistic receptive field. Neither a double-opponent receptive field nor a receptive field without spatial antagonism accounts for the influence of context on binocular color rivalry.     

Laughter abolishes binocular rivalry

Background : Binocular rivalry is an increasingly popular technique for the study of consciousness, which changes quasi‐regularly during rivalry, despite the unchanging sensory stimuli presented to each eye. For example, if a small patch of horizontal stripes is presented constantly to the fovea of one eye and a small patch of vertical stripes is similarly presented constantly to the fovea of the other eye, most subjects experience an alternation between stimuli rather than a simultaneous mixed percept of both. Methods : Binocular rivalry was induced, superimposed on normal viewing, using liquid crystal shutters and a short persistence monitor, which produced a one degree circular patch of horizontal gratings to the right eye and an identical patch of vertical gratings in the same location for the left eye. The subject signalled with key presses the three possible perceptual states that alternated with each other, namely horizontal, vertical and mixed percept (where horizontal and vertical were simultaneously visible). Results : The present study builds on an incidental observation that laughter stopped the rivalry alternations between horizontal and vertical and induced the mixed percept instead. A physical explanation for this effect was ruled out by using stabilised imagery in the form of retinal after‐images of the rivalling gratings. Under conditions of retinal stabilisation, laughter also produced the mixed percept. Conclusions : The results are discussed in the light of recent work that indicates the inadequacy of low‐level explanation of rivalry, with laughter being another complex multi‐level contribution to the neural basis of rivalry, along with other aspects of mood. The results are discussed in relation to the interesting literature on the neurology and postulated functions of laughter.     

Controlling binocular rivalry.

Binocular rivalry is the alternating perception that occurs when the two eyes are presented with incompatible stimuli. We have developed a new method for controlling binocular rivalry and measuring its progress. One eye views a static grating while the fellow eye views a grating that smoothly and cyclically varies between two orientations, one the same as the static grating and the other orthogonal. Contrast sensitivity was tested monocularly a number of times during the stimulus cycle. When the eye viewing the static grating was tested, sensitivity varied between maximum and minimum values as the conditioning stimulus varied from binocularly compatible to incompatible. The interocular suppression thus demonstrated was limited to the eye viewing the static grating; variations in the fellow eye's sensitivity were due to interocular masking alone.     

Minimal physiological conditions for binocular rivalry and rivalry memory

Binocular rivalry entails a perceptual alternation between incompatible stimuli presented to the two eyes. A minimal explanation for binocular rivalry involves strong competitive inhibition between neurons responding to different monocular stimuli to preclude simultaneous activity in the two groups. In addition, strong self-adaptation of dominant neurons is necessary to enable suppressed neurons to become dominant in turn. Here a minimal nonlinear neural model is developed incorporating inhibition, self-adaptation, and recurrent excitation. The model permits derivation of an equation for mean dominance duration as a function of the underlying physiological variables. The dominance duration equation incorporates an explicit representation of Levelt's second law. The same equation also shows that introduction of a simple compressive response nonlinearity can explain Levelt's fourth law. Finally, addition of brief, recurrent synaptic facilitation to the model generates properties of rivalry memory.     

Stochastic resonance in binocular rivalry

When a different image is presented to each eye, visual awareness spontaneously alternates between the two images--a phenomenon called binocular rivalry. Because binocular rivalry is characterized by two marginally stable perceptual states and spontaneous, apparently stochastic, switching between them, it has been speculated that switches in perceptual awareness reflect a double-well-potential type computational architecture coupled with noise. To characterize this noise-mediated mechanism, we investigated whether stimulus input, neural adaptation, and inhibitory modulations (thought to underlie perceptual switches) interacted with noise in such a way that the system produced stochastic resonance. By subjecting binocular rivalry to weak periodic contrast modulations spanning a range of frequencies, we demonstrated quantitative evidence of stochastic resonance in binocular rivalry. Our behavioral results combined with computational simulations provided insights into the nature of the internal noise (its magnitude, locus, and calibration) that is relevant to perceptual switching, as well as provided novel dynamic constraints on computational models designed to capture the neural mechanisms underlying perceptual switching.     

Audiovisual interactions in binocular rivalry

When the two eyes are presented with dissimilar images, human observers report alternating percepts-a phenomenon coined binocular rivalry. These perceptual fluctuations reflect competition between the two visual inputs both at monocular and binocular processing stages. Here we investigated the influence of auditory stimulation on the temporal dynamics of binocular rivalry. In three psychophysics experiments, we investigated whether sounds that provide directionally congruent, incongruent, or non-motion information modulate the dominance periods of rivaling visual motion percepts. Visual stimuli were dichoptically presented random-dot kinematograms (RDKs) at different levels of motion coherence. The results show that directional motion sounds rather than auditory input per se influenced the temporal dynamics of binocular rivalry. In all experiments, motion sounds prolonged the dominance periods of the directionally congruent visual motion percept. In contrast, motion sounds abbreviated the suppression periods of the directionally congruent visual motion percepts only when they competed with directionally incongruent percepts. Therefore, analogous to visual contextual effects, auditory motion interacted primarily with consciously perceived visual input rather than visual input suppressed from awareness. Our findings suggest that auditory modulation of perceptual dominance times might be established in a top-down fashion by means of feedback mechanisms.     

A physiological model of binocular rivalry

This paper presents a modified reciprocal inhibition model for the temporal dynamics of binocular rivalry. The model is based on neurophysiological mechanisms and is derived from human psychophysical data. A simple reciprocal inhibition oscillator may be described with a set of four coupled differential equations with a neurophysiological interpretation. However, such a circuit does not account for some aspects of the temporal behavior of binocular rivalry, including the effects of contrast change on alternation rate and on the magnitudes of changes in duration of the suppressed and dominant phases. To better account for these phenomena, the equations and their stimulation are modified to include three new components: (1) presynaptic inhibition of the reciprocal inhibition by the input, (2) the motor delays that occur when a human observer tracks rivalry and (3) a minimum threshold for each neuron's state variable. The result is a much improved fit to psychophysically-obtained data on the temporal behavior of binocular rivalry. Finally, the model is incorporated into a larger model to suggest how rivalry might occur in a network that usually exhibits binocular fusion.     

Monocular rivalry exhibits three hallmarks of binocular rivalry: Evidence for common processes

Binocular rivalry occurs when different images are presented one to each eye: the images are visible only alternately. Monocular rivalry occurs when different images are presented both to the same eye: the clarity of the images fluctuates alternately. Could both sorts of rivalry reflect the operation of a general visual mechanism for dealing with perceptual ambiguity? We report four experiments showing similarities between the two phenomena. First, we show that monocular rivalry can occur with complex images, as with binocular rivalry, and that the two phenomena are affected similarly by the size (Experiment 1) and colour (Experiment 2) of the images. Second, we show that the distribution of dominance periods during monocular rivalry has a gamma shape and is stochastic (Experiment 3). Third, we show that during periods of monocular-rivalry suppression, the threshold to detect a probe (a contrast pulse to the suppressed stimulus) is raised compared with during periods of dominance (Experiment 4). The threshold elevation is much weaker than during binocular rivalry, consistent with monocular rivalry’s weak appearance. We discuss other similarities between monocular and binocular rivalry, and also some differences, concluding that part of the processing underlying both phenomena is a general visual mechanism for dealing with perceptual ambiguity.     

Local binocular fusion is involved in global binocular rivalry

We examined whether interocular inhibition in binocular rivalry could occur at the interocular intersection of horizontal and vertical rectangular patches which are locally fusible but globally rivalrous between the two eyes. We measured contrast increment (and decrement) thresholds of a monocularly presented probe which was presented on the horizontal patch corresponding to the intersection. We found that the threshold was higher when the horizontal patch was perceptually suppressed than when it was dominant. In addition, threshold elevation did not occur when both patches were dominant, or when the horizontal patch was viewed in isolation. These results indicate that interocular inhibition occurs at the potentially fusible region, and the determination of binocular fusion or binocular rivalry does not depend on physical stimulus but rather perceptual state at the time.     

Center-surround inhibition deepens binocular rivalry suppression

When dissimilar stimuli are presented to each eye, perception alternates between both images--a phenomenon known as binocular rivalry. It has been shown that stimuli presented in proximity of rival targets modulate the time each target is perceptually dominant. For example, presenting motion to the region surrounding the rival targets decreases the predominance of the same-direction target. Here, using a stationary concentric grating rivaling with a drifting grating, we show that a drifting surround grating also increases the depth of binocular rivalry suppression, as measured by sensitivity to a speed discrimination probe on the rival grating. This was especially so when the surround moved in the same direction as the grating, and was slightly weaker for opposed directions. Suppression in both cases was deeper than a no-surround control condition. We hypothesize that surround suppression often observed in area MT (V5)-a visual area implicated in visual motion perception-is responsible for this increase in suppression. In support of this hypothesis, monocular and binocular surrounds were both effective in increasing suppression depth, as were surrounds contralateral to the probed eye. Static and orthogonal motion surrounds failed to add to the depth of rivalry suppression. These results implicate a higher-level, fully binocular area whose surround inhibition provides an additional source of suppression which sums with rivalry suppression to effectively deepen suppression of an unseen rival target.     

Subjective contours and binocular rivalry suppression

Binocular rivalry probably involves distributed neural processes, some responsible for dominance, others for suppression and still others for fluctuations in perception. Focusing on the suppression process, the present study asks whether neural events underlying rivalry suppression take place prior to, or subsequent to those underlying the synthesis of subjective contours. Specifically, we examined whether (i) a subjective contour could prematurely return a suppressed target to dominance and (ii) whether suppression of a Kanizsa-type inducer precludes the formation of a subjective contour. Suppression durations were not abbreviated by the subjective contour, but suppression did prevent the formation of a subjective contour. Evidently suppression precedes the synthesis of subjective contours in the visual processing hierarchy.     

Grouping and segmentation in binocular rivalry

Dichoptic presentation of dot arrays produces binocular rivalry if the arrays are of opposite contrast relative to background. Rivalry can occur even if individual dots in one eye's array do not overlap with the dots in the contralateral eye's array. The amount of unitary perception of only one array is a measure of the probability that the stimuli rival as textured surfaces rather than as portions of arrays or as individual dot elements. In accordance with Gestalt grouping principles, arrays of uniform brightness or color produced more unitary perception than mixed arrays. However, experiments with parametric variation of dot motion coherence suggested that segmentation mechanisms based on detection of collinearity can also influence perceptual selection and suppression in binocular rivalry.     

Monocular analogues to binocular contour rivalry

Monocular phenomenological analogues to binocular contour rivalry were demonstrated with after-images. Evidence was presented that the term “contour rivalry” is justified for the monocular analogue. Monocular contour rivalry seems to be a cortical phenomenon as is binocular contour rivalry. Intersection of contours may develop in a monocular after-image by filling-in of contours. The filling-in alternates as the contour dominance alternates. In binocular and in monocular contour rivalry halos of suppression are observed which have similar dimensions under similar conditions.     

Grouping visual features during binocular rivalry

During binocular rivalry, portions of one eye's view may be perceptually dominant while other portions are suppressed; at any given moment, overall dominance often resembles a patchwork mixture of the two eyes' views. This study investigates the potency of two Gestalt grouping cues--good continuation and common fate--to promote synchronous fluctuations in dominance of two, spatially separated rival targets. Two grating patches were presented to the left eye paired dichoptically with random-dot patches presented to corresponding right eye locations. The orientations of the two gratings were either collinear, parallel or orthogonal. Gratings underwent contrast modulations that were either correlated (identical contrast changes) or uncorrelated (independent contrast changes). Over 60 s trials, observers pressed one key when the left grating predominated, another when the right grating predominated and both keys when both were concurrently visible. Correlated contrast modulation promoted joint grating predominance relative to the uncorrelated conditions, an effect strongest for collinear gratings. Joint predominance depended strongly on the angular separation between gratings and the temporal phase-lag in contrast modulations. These findings may reflect neural interactions subserved by lateral connections between cortical hypercolumns.     

Rival ideas about binocular rivalry.

Binocular rivalry has been used to investigate neural correlates of visual awareness. For this investigation to succeed, however, it is necessary to know what rivals during binocular rivalry. Recent work has raised questions about whether rivalry is between eyes or between stimuli. We find that stimulus rivalry occurs only within a limited range of spatial and temporal parameters--otherwise eye rivalry dominates.     

Temporal characteristics of binocular rivalry: visual field asymmetries

Very little is known about the mechanisms that drive the alternation between the two views during binocular rivalry. A key property of the rivalry process is the rate at which the two views alternate. Understanding the factors that affect the rate of the alternation is critical to the final understanding of the underlying process. Using a circular and a radial grating as the rivalry stimuli, we observed a significantly faster binocular rivalry when stimuli were presented in the right visual field than that in the left visual field for the right-handed observers, and a reversed asymmetry for the left-handed observers. In both groups, rivalry was faster for stimuli presented in the lower visual field than that in the upper visual field. This pattern of results suggests that (1) rivalry is likely a locally driven process and (2) the visual brain in the left hemisphere may be the faster one of the two hemispheres in right-handed people.