Center-surround interactions in visual motion processing during binocular rivalry

When each eye is confronted with a dissimilar stimulus, the percept will generally alternate between the two. This phenomenon is known as binocular rivalry. Although binocular rivalry occurs at locations where targets overlap spatially, the area surrounding rivalrous targets can modulate their dominance. Here we show that during binocular rivalry of oppositely moving gratings, a surrounding grating moving in the same direction as one of the two leads to increased dominance of the opposite direction of motion in the center. This increased dominance of the opposite direction in the center was observed irrespective of the eye to which the surround was presented. Inspection of the results for different conditions reveals that the preference for the opposite direction of motion cannot be explained by a single mechanism operating beyond binocular fusion. We therefore suggest that this phenomenon is the outcome of center-surround interactions at multiple levels along the pathway of visual motion processing.     

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.     

Apparent motion can survive binocular rivalry suppression

For short-range motion, observers dichoptically viewed a random-dot cinematogram and a rival target. Upon keypress, the first frame of the cinematogram was replaced by the second frame. Observers judged the direction of motion, which was governed by the initial position of the central region. Performance was well above chance during both dominance and suppression. For long-range motion, observers rated the motion produced by sequentially flashing two small spots, with the first spot contained within a rivalrous region. Suppression reduced but did not prevent perception of this motion. Presenting the second motion frame to both eyes weakened both forms of motion.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Feature-based activation and suppression during binocular rivalry

In the past decade, effects of pattern coherence have indicated that perception during binocular rivalry does not result solely from reciprocal inhibitory competition between monocular channels. In this study we were interested in feature selectivity both during dominance and during suppression. The first experiment shows that a suppressed stimulus perceptually appears earlier when it shares features with a visible stimulus than when it does not. Subsequently, our second experiment suggests a reversal of this effect when similarity is exhibited with a suppressed stimulus. These findings hint at a role for both selective enhancing (Experiment 1) and selective inhibitory cortical mechanisms (Experiment 2) in causing image rivalry. From a phenomenological perspective these results suggest that we are not only selectively aware but also selectively unaware of specific features in the visual scene.     

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.     

Stimulus flicker alters interocular grouping during binocular rivalry

When the two eyes are presented with sufficiently different stimuli, the stimuli will engage in binocular rivalry. During binocular rivalry, a subject's perceptual state alternates between awareness of the stimulus presented to the right eye and that presented to the left eye. There are instances in which competition is not eye-based, but instead takes place between stimulus features, as is the case in flicker and switch rivalry (F&S). Here we investigate another such instance, interocular grouping, using a Diaz-Caneja type stimulus in conjunction with synchronous stimulus flicker. Our results indicate that stimulus flicker increases the total duration of interocularly bound percepts, and that this effect occurs for a range of temporal flicker frequencies. Furthermore, the use of contrast-inversion flicker causes a decrease of total dominance duration of the interocularly bound percepts. We argue that different flickering regimes can be used to differentially stimulate lower and higher levels of visual processing involved in binocular rivalry. We propose that the amount of interocularly combined pattern-completed percept can be regarded as a measure of the level at which binocular rivalry is resolved.     

V1 activity is reduced during binocular rivalry

During binocular rivalry, one of two incompatible monocular stimuli is erased from perceptual awareness for seconds at a time. To examine whether this "rivalry suppression" occurs in V1, we measured functional magnetic resonance imaging activity during binocular rivalry and compared it with those in the two reference conditions: one representing complete suppression and the other representing no suppression. We found that the amplitude of V1 activity during rivalry fell midway between those in the two reference conditions; the amount of V1 activity associated with the nondominant pattern was reduced by 48% to 77% during rivalry. The same pattern of results was obtained with meaningful rival targets (i.e., a human face and a house). In this work, using a different experimental protocol, we confirmed the findings of earlier imaging studies that neuronal events associated with binocular rivalry occur as early as V1. Furthermore, our findings extend those earlier findings by demonstrating robust neural suppression during binocular rivalry regardless of the stimulus complexity of the rivaling targets.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

A fresh look at interocular grouping during binocular rivalry

During binocular rivalry, observers sometimes perceive one complete visual object even though component features of that perceptually dominant object are distributed between the two eyes and are in rivalry against other, dissimilar features. This interocular grouping cannot be explained by models of rivalry in which one eye or the other is completely dominant at any given moment. But perhaps global interocular grouping is achieved by simultaneous local eye dominance, wherein portions of one eye's view and complementary portions of the other eye's view become dominant simultaneously. To test this possibility, we performed two experiments using relatively large, complex figures as rival targets. In one experiment we used an "eye-swap" technique to confirm that within given, local spatial regions of rivalry it was the region of an eye--not a given stimulus feature--that was usually dominant. In a second experiment, we measured dominance durations for multiple, local zones of rivalry and then created 1-min animations of a global "montage" in which dominance within local regions was governed by the distributions of dominance measured empirically. These animations included significant periods of time during which global interocular grouping was evident; observers viewed these animations intermixed with actual rivalry displays, and the resulting tracking data confirmed the similarity in global dominance of the two display types. Thus interocular grouping during rivalry does not rule out local, eye-based rivalry, although synergistic and top-down influences almost certainly provide additional force in the promotion of interocular grouping.     

Detecting contrast changes in invisible patterns during binocular rivalry

When dissimilar images are presented to the two eyes, the human visual system lapses into binocular rivalry, a unique perceptual state characterized by stochastic alternations in dominance of one of the two source images over the other. Probe targets delivered to an eye during suppression phases are more difficult to detect than probes delivered during dominance phases. Nearly all probe studies have involved presenting new stimulation (e.g., a spot of light) either superimposed on or replacing the suppressed stimulus. Here, we ask whether observers can detect a reduction in the contrast of the suppressed stimulus itself. In other words, can observers detect a probe that should make an already invisible stimulus even weaker? Specifically, we compared observers’ ability to detect contrast increments and contrast decrements introduced within a rival pattern during dominance and suppression. Contrast increment thresholds were elevated across all pedestal contrasts when the increment was introduced during suppression compared to during dominance, replicating previous results. Contrast decrement thresholds measured during suppression were elevated to an even greater extent, but the fact that they were obtained at all establishes that observers were able to detect probes that should make an already invisible target even more difficult to perceive. In a second experiment, we found a similar pattern of results for contrast change detection in complex images of faces as well. Based on the resulting threshold-vs.-contrast functions, we suggest that, regardless of the complexity of the image, rivalry suppression modulates the neural contrast response function through a mixture of reduced overall response gain and a shift in the contrast gain.