Endogenous attention prolongs dominance durations in binocular rivalry

We investigated the effects of attention on dominance durations during binocular rivalry. In a series of three experiments, observers performed several tasks while viewing rival stimuli to ensure and control deployment of attention. We found that endogenous attention can prolong dominance durations of attended stimulus. We developed a novel single-task procedure where observer's responses in an attentional task were used to objectively estimate dominance durations of the attended stimulus. Using this procedure, we showed that paying attention to the stimulus features involved in rivalry is necessary for prolonging dominance durations--mere engagement of attention during rivalry was insufficient. Finally, we were able to simulate the effects of endogenous attention by doubling the contrast of the attended stimulus while it was dominant. Attention may increase the apparent contrast of the attended stimulus, thereby prolonging its dominance duration. Overall, our results indicate that dominance durations in rivalry can be prolonged when observers are performing an attentionally demanding task on the rival stimulus.     

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.     

Effect of binocular rivalry suppression on initial ocular following responses

To study the effect of binocular rivalry (BR) suppression on the ocular following response (OFR), we recorded the OFR in both the suppressed and the dominant phases of BR. The BR was established using stationary horizontal/vertical grating patterns presented on two PC monitors. Once a subjective image of a vertical or horizontal grating pattern was perceived, subjects pressed a button to trigger an onset of brief horizontal movement (750 ms) of the vertical grating pattern and an offset of the horizontal pattern. The OFRs were recorded using a scleral search coil system at 1 kHz. The OFRs from the suppressed phases were significantly reduced compared to those from the dominant phases. The OFRs were asymmetrical to temporalward and nasalward motion in most conditions. We suggest that asymmetry of OFRs under the incomplete BR conditions may be a reflection of imbalance binocular inputs and processing in the visual system similar to asymmetrical optokinetic nystagmus in strabismic subjects. The latency of the OFR in deeper suppressed conditions was prolonged, suggesting that the interaction of BR and OFR may occur at multiple stages including an early stage of the visual processing. The OFR may have the potential for objective measurement of BR suppression in clinical evaluation of binocular function.     

Exogenous attention and endogenous attention influence initial dominance in binocular rivalry

We investigated the influence of exogenous and endogenous attention on initial selection in binocular rivalry. Experiment 1 used superimposed +/-45 degrees gratings viewed dioptically for 3s, followed by a brief contrast increment in one of the gratings to direct exogenous attention to that grating. After a brief blank period, dichoptic stimuli were presented for various durations (100-700 ms). Exogenous attention strongly influenced which stimulus was initially dominant in binocular rivalry, replicating an earlier report (Mitchell, Stoner, & Reynolds. (2004). Object-based attention determines dominance in binocular rivalry. Nature, 429, 410-413). In Experiment 2, endogenous attention was manipulated by having participants track one of two oblique gratings both of which independently and continuously changed their orientations and spatial frequencies during a 5s period. The initially dominant grating was most often the one whose orientation matched the grating correctly tracked using endogenous attention. In Experiment 3, we measured the strength of both exogenous and endogenous attention by varying the contrast of one of two rival gratings when attention was previously directed to that grating. The contrast of the attended grating had to be reduced by an amount in the neighborhood of 0.3 log-units, to counteract attention's boost to initial dominance. Evidently both exogenous and endogenous attention can influence initial dominance of binocular rivalry, effectively boosting the stimulus strength of the attended rival stimulus.     

Inter-ocular transfer of stimulus cueing in dominance selection at the onset of binocular rivalry

Recent work investigated the influence of exogenous attention on initial percept dominance at the onset of binocular rivalry. It was reported that cueing attention to one of two binocularly presented transparent stimuli immediately prior to rivalrous viewing provided the cued stimulus with a competitive advantage in subsequent binocular rivalry. This effect was independent of the eye containing the cued stimulus during the rivalry phase. In this recent work, the attention cue was always presented to both eyes. This leaves unclear the extent to which cueing affects binocular and/or monocular stimulus representations. To disambiguate this issue, we compared the cueing strength when the cue was presented ipsi-, contra- or bi-laterally with respect to the eye containing the cued stimulus during subsequent binocular rivalry. Besides replicating previous findings, we found that stimulus cueing readily transfers across eyes, suggesting that binocular mechanisms mediate exogenous attention effects on dominance selection at the onset of binocular rivalry.     

Effects of ocular dominance on binocular summation after monocular reading adds

PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between ocular dominance and binocular summation with monocular reading adds. SETTING: Department of Orthoptics and Visual Science, School of Allied Health Sciences, Kitasato University, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan. METHODS: Contrast sensitivities were measured by having subjects view contrast charts at spatial frequencies of 1.5, 3.0, 6.0, 12.0, and 18.0 cycles per degree after the addition of positive spherical lenses that ranged from +1.0 to +3.0 diopters (D). Through the use of a balance technique, the test group was quantitatively divided into 12 weak and 8 strong ocular dominance subjects on the basis of binocular rivalry. In study 1, binocular contrast sensitivity was measured in the weak and strong ocular dominances by adding a positive spherical lens in front of 1 eye, whereas the other eye was fixed at a corrected distance. RESULTS: In study 1, the binocular summation was observed only after adding positive spherical lenses in the nondominant eye. The differences in binocular contrast sensitivity that occurred after adding a positive spherical lens in the dominant eye versus that seen in the nondominant eye were statistically significant in the strong ocular dominance subjects who had +1.5 D and +2.0 D defocuses (P<.05; analysis of variance). CONCLUSIONS: Binocular summation was effectively maintained with reading adds in the nondominant eye and was significantly influenced by the magnitude of ocular dominance. Evaluating binocular summation after monocular reading adds seems to be a good method to evaluate adaptability to monovision.     

Suppressive processes in binocular vision: ocular dominance and amblyopia.

Recent suggestsions linking suppression observed in amblyopia ex anopsia with that manifested in normal ocular dominance coordinations were experimentally tested. Training procedures which normally alleviate functional amblyopic suppression were shown to have similar results in alleviating the suppression of the nondominant eye in visually normal observers. Methodological and theoretical implications of these results are discussed.     

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.     

Conflict defined by global gestalt can modulate binocular rivalry suppression

Binocular rivalry suppression is thought to necessarily require local interocular conflict: the presence of incompatible image elements, such as orthogonal contours, in retinally corresponding regions of two monocular displays. Whether suppression can also be driven by conflict at the level of spatially nonlocal surface or object representations is unclear. Here, we kept local contour conflict constant while varying global conflict, defined by the gestalt formed by the two monocular displays. Specifically, each eye was presented with a grid of image elements (crosses or plusses), placed such that the two eyes’ individual grid elements did not directly overlap but the grids as a whole did. In a “shared motion” condition, all elements moved in unison, inviting a gestalt made up of all elements across both eyes; in a “different motions” condition, the elements’ trajectories differed between eyes, inviting a gestalt of two overlapping surfaces, each associated with one eye. Perceptual disappearances of image elements occurred more readily in the different motions condition, an observation that could not be explained by any between-condition differences in local contour conflict. In a second experiment, we furthermore established that, whereas perceptual disappearances in the shared motion condition tended to involve a single element at a time, in the different motions condition, multiple elements belonging to the same gestalt often disappeared together. These findings indicate that, even though binocular rivalry may critically rely on inhibition due to locally incompatible image elements, this inhibition also depends on the global gestalt to which these elements contribute.     

Dynamics of perceptual filling-in of visual phantoms revealed by binocular rivalry

How do selective and constructive visual mechanisms interact to determine the outcome of conscious perception? Binocular rivalry involves selective perception of one of two competing monocular images, whereas visual phantoms involve perceptual filling-in between two low-contrast collinear gratings. Recently, we showed that visual phantoms lead to neural filling-in of activity in V1 and V2, which can be dynamically gated by rivalry suppression (M. Meng, D. A. Remus, & F. Tong, 2005). Here, we used psychophysical methods to study the temporal dynamics of filling-in, by applying rivalry or flash suppression to trigger the suppression or appearance of visual phantoms. Experiments revealed that phantom filling-in involves an active, time-dependent process that depends on the phenomenal visibility of the phantom-inducing gratings. Shortly after the inducing gratings became dominant during rivalry, the likelihood of perceiving phantoms in the intervening gap increased over time, with larger gaps requiring more time for filling-in. In contrast, suppression of the inducing gratings promptly led to the disappearance of visual phantoms, with response times independent of gap size. The fact that binocular rivalry can prevent the formation of visual phantoms rules out the possibility that rivalry suppression occurs after the site of phantom filling-in. This study provides novel evidence that visual phantoms result from a slow time-dependent filling-in mechanism; possible models to account for its time course are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

On the coexistence of stereopsis and binocular rivalry

Dichoptically viewed complex texture stereograms with correlated spatial frequency information can yield stable depth perception, implying cooperative interaction between the two eyes. Dichoptically viewed dissimilar texture pairs may yield competition in the form of binocular rivalry. To study whether stereopsis and rivalry can spatially coexist when stimulus conditions for both are present, we had observers dichoptically view spatial frequency filtered random-dot patterns. The left eye viewed one half-image of an RDS; the right eye viewed the superimposition of the other RDS half-image (which when paired alone with the left-eye RDS yielded stereoscopic depth) and a noise target (which on its own engaged in rivalry with the right eye target). Observers judged the quality of depth and the rate of rivalry for these stereo-pairs. When the contrast of the noise component was low, observers experienced stereopsis and stable single vision that included the noise. At intermediate noise contrasts, local regions were seen either in rivalry or in stereoscopic depth, but rivalry and depth were not experienced at the same spatial location simultaneously. At high noise contrasts, the right eye target dominated almost exclusively, with little hint of stereopsis. Essentially the same pattern of results was obtained in forced-choice experiments in which observers judged the direction of stereoscopic tilt from vertical cosine gratings differing slightly in spatial frequency. Considered together, these results are inconsistent with theories positing that rivalry and stereopsis coexist at the same spatial location because they occur within independent, parallel pathways.     

Influence of emotional facial expressions on binocular rivalry

Three experiments investigated whether emotional information influences perceptual dominance during binocular rivalry. In Experiment 1, rival emotional and neutral faces in the background were coupled with grating stimuli in the foreground. Results showed that gratings paired with emotional faces dominated over those paired with neutral faces. In Experiment 2, emotional and neutral faces were presented dichoptically, without being paired with other stimuli. Dominance of emotional faces was observed. Fusion and low-level image differences were ruled out by examining dominance periods of upright and inverted emotional and neutral faces presented as face-house pairs (Experiment 3). Here, face stimuli dominated over house stimuli only for upright face conditions. In addition, upright emotional faces were perceived for significantly longer durations than upright neutral faces. The results provide further support for the influence of emotional meaning on binocular rivalry.     

Functional asymmetries of the human visual system as revealed by binocular rivalry and binocular brightness matching.

Two techniques, a binocular rivalry task and a binocular brightness matching task, were designed to yield indices of asymmetry (relative dominance weights) for the two eyes, the crossed and uncrossed visual pathways, and the two cerebral hemispheres. Twenty subjects with normal vision were run on all conditions. Intercorrelations of the dominance weights obtained by the two methods showed no relationship between the two methods, but produced three hypotheses about visual functioning: (1) the left hemisphere appears more dominant for rivalry; (2) the right hemisphere appears more dominant for brightness matching; (3) the uncrossed visual pathways are dominant over the crossed pathways in the binocular rivalry task.     

Resolution of binocular rivalry: Perceptual misbinding of color

Is neural binding of color and form required for perception of a unified colored object? Individual cells selectively tuned to both color and orientation are proposed to moot the binding problem. This study reveals perceptual misbinding of color, thereby revealing separate neural representations of color and form followed by a subsequent binding process. Low luminance-contrast, rivalrous chromatic gratings were presented dichoptically. Each grating had alternating chromatic and gray stripes (e.g., red/gray in the left eye, green/gray in the right eye). Observers viewed the two rivalrous, 2 cpd gratings for 1 min. The duration of exclusive visibility was measured for four percepts: left-eye stimulus, right-eye stimulus, fusion of the two colors, or a two-color grating (e.g. a red/green grating). The percept of a two-color grating (misbinding) was observed with Michelson luminance contrast in the grating up to 20%. In general, for a given level of luminance contrast either misbinding (low luminance contrast) or color mixture (high luminance contrast) was observed, but not both of them. The perceived two-color gratings show that two rivalrous chromaticities are both represented neurally when color and form are combined to give a unified percept. "Resolution" of competing chromatic signals from the two eyes is not restricted to color dominance and color mixture. The transition from misbinding to color mixture by increasing luminance contrast shows that luminance edges have an important role in correct localization of color.     

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.     

Contradictory influence of context on predominance during binocular rivalry

Background: Binocular rivalry is a complex process characterised by alternations in perceptual suppression and dominance that result when two different images are presented simultaneously to the left and right eyes. It has been reported recently that the addition of contextual cues will promote the predominance of the context consistent rivalry target. In contrast to Levelt' second proposition (1965), this effect has been found to result exclusively from an increase in the dominance phase duration, while the suppression phase duration remains unaffected. Methods: Human subjects were simultaneously presented with a small disc consisting of gratings (four cycles per degree) of different orientations to the two eyes. Four experiments were conducted to ascertain the effects of background gratings and contextual colour information on target predominance and phase duration. For each of the four experimental conditions, the orientation and colour of the target gratings and surrounding contextual background were systematically manipulated. Results: In this study, we report an effect opposite to that of Levelt. Contradictory contextual information increases target predominance and phase duration during binocular rivalry. Our results demonstrate that it is possible to promote the dominance of the context contradictory percept with co‐linearity, cochromaticity and orientation cues. In line with previous studies involving context, we find that this effect on predominance is due to an increase in the duration of the dominance rather than the suppression phase. Discussion: We discuss our findings in respect to those from previous studies and consider high‐ and low‐level processes that may be responsible for these apparently ‘contradictory’ roles of context on binocular rivalry. In addition, we discuss how the apparent ‘anti‐Levelt’ effect of context can be reinterpreted in a manner that brings it back in line with Levelt's second proposition and raises the question of whether ‘suppressability’ plays a disproportionately large role in determining the duration of perceptual phases in binocular rivalry.