Binocular rivalry and reciprocal inhibition

Fox, Robert; Rasche, Frank

doi:10.3758/bf03210542

Cited by 96 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is, however, formidable evidence against a reciprocal inhibition model of rivalry, particularly the finding (Blake, 1977;Fox & Rasche, 1969;Levelt, 1965) that changes in the stimulus strength in one eye do not influence the duration of periods for which the other eye's view is suppressed. At the present time, then, there is no ready explanation for the data shown in Figure 3.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of contrast on the completeness of binocular rivalry suppression

Hollins

1980

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of contrast on the completeness of binocular rivalry suppression

Hollins

1980

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…When the current percept is dominated by Mondrian patterns, each Mondrian flash 'refreshes' its percept with probability of p(t FI ) (t FI is the flash interval). If the flash is successful, it resets the dominance period according to equation (2), maintaining the Mondrian percept. When the current percept is that of a Gabor, each…”

Section: Addition Of a Repetitive Fs Componentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Continuous flash suppression reduces negative afterimages

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important parameter for successful CFS is the flash interval between successive presentations of distinct Mondrian patterns. We studied dominance during a one-minute observation period as a function of different flash intervals (Fig. S1a and b). The most effective flash interval for long suppression was between 80 and 320 ms (~3-12 Hz flash rate). We used a 10 Hz flash rate for all experiments reported here. Mondrian only, Gabor only, and a mixture of the two. The flash interval was randomized within

show abstract

“…This conclusion, if supported, would represent a serious challenge to more sensory-based theories of rivalry (e.g., Abadi, 1976;Fox & Rasche, 1969;Wade, 1974). However, the evidence for an influence of meaning on rivalry must be interpreted…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dichoptic reading: The role of meaning in binocular rivalry

Blake

1988

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

These experiments sought to determine whether meaning influences the predominance of one eye during binocular rivalry. In Experiment I, observers tried to read meaningful text under conditions in which different text streams were viewed by the two eyes, a situation mimicking the classic dichotic listening paradigm. Dichoptic reading proved impossible even when the text streams were printed in different fonts or when one eye received a 5-sec advantage. Under nonrivalry conditions, the observers were able to read text presented at twice the rate usedfor dichoptic testing, indicating that cognitive overload does not limit performance under conditions of rivalry. In Experiment 2, observers were required to detect repeated presentations of a probe target within a string of characters presented to one eye. Although this task was easily performed under monocular viewing conditions, it proved difficult when the two eyes received dissimilar character strings. This was true regardless of whether the probed eye viewed nonsense strings, real words, or meaningful text. In a condition designed to encourage semantic processing of one eye's view, the observers were required to detect animal names as well as to detect the probe target. Performance remained inferior to that measured under monocular conditions. Even the observer's own name proved insufficient to influence the predominance of one eye under conditions of dichoptic stimulation. When two text strings were physically superimposed and viewed monocularly, essentially no probes were detected, indicating that the failure to see some probes during rivalry reflects a limitation unique to dichoptic viewing. These results contradict theories attributing binocular rivalry to an attentional process that operates on monocular inputs that have received refined analysis. This conclusion may be limited to rival stimuli whose meaning is defined linguistically, not structurally.The idea that binocular rivalry involves some sort of attentional mechanism is deeply rooted within the literature on visual perception. In his classic treatise on physiological optics, Helmholtz (1866/1962) dealt at some length with the parallels between rivalry and attention, and James (1890), in his chapter on attention, used rivalry to illustrate the hallmarks of what he called "sensorial attention." This putative link between rivalry and attention also appears in contemporary writings. In one of the most recent reviews of the literature on binocular rivalry, Walker (1978) maintained this tradition by arguing that "rivalry reflects central selective processes ... over and above the analysis of sensory information" (p. 387).Several lines of evidence can be marshaled in support of the view that rivalry involves central attentional mechanisms. For one thing, rivalry occurs even when the provoking stimuli are afterimages (e.g., Breese, 1899), a condition that effectively eliminates such peripheral factors as eye movements, retinal adaptation, or changes in accommodation as causes of rivalry. It is also known that

show abstract

Binocular rivalry and reciprocal inhibition

Cited by 96 publications

References 6 publications

The effect of contrast on the completeness of binocular rivalry suppression

The effect of contrast on the completeness of binocular rivalry suppression

Continuous flash suppression reduces negative afterimages

Dichoptic reading: The role of meaning in binocular rivalry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About