Binocular rivalry and semantic processing: Out of sight, out of mind.

Zimba, Lynn D.; Blake, Randolph

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.9.5.807

Cited by 62 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are, however, several reasons to reject this cognitive overload argument. For one thing, the argument is tantamount to assuming that suppression of one eye's input occurs after the site where text information is processed, yet there is evidence that suppression occurs prior to this stage of processing (Zimba & Blake, 1983). The descriptions offered by the observers in the present experiment indicate that they were experiencing binocular rivalry, not two superimposed streams of text.…”

Section: Experiments 1: Dichoptic Readingmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…In contrast, the present results indicate that the informational content of rival targets, linguistically defined, has essentially no influence on rivalry dominance. These properties of binocular rivalry imply that the underlying neural events transpire at a fairly early level of visual processing, prior to the stage where semantic information has been extracted (see also Zimba & Blake, 1983).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dichoptic reading: The role of meaning in binocular rivalry

Blake

1988

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

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

Section: Experiments 1: Dichoptic Readingmentioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dichoptic reading: The role of meaning in binocular rivalry

Blake

1988

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CFS, or interocular suppression techniques more generally (26)(27)(28). Previous attempts to obtain high-level priming effects with interocular suppression techniques may have failed because they did not distinguished between stimuli that do (i.e., tools) and do not (i.e., animals, vehicles) have strong representations in the dorsal object processing stream.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unconscious processing dissociates along categorical lines

Almeida

Mahon

Nakayama

et al. 2008

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

170

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual object recognition is subserved by ventral temporal and occipital regions of the brain. Regions comprising the dorsal visual pathway have not been considered relevant for object recognition, despite strong categorical biases for tool-related information in those regions. Here, we show that dorsal stream processes influence object categorization. We used two techniques to render prime pictures invisible: continuous flash suppression (CFS), which obliterates input into ventral temporal regions, but leaves dorsal stream processes largely unaffected, and backward masking (BM), which allows suppressed information to reach both ventral and dorsal stream structures. Categorically congruent primes suppressed under CFS facilitate categorization of tools but have no effect on nonmanipulable objects; in contrast, primes rendered invisible through BM facilitate target categorization for both tools and nonmanipulable things. Our findings demonstrate that information computed by the dorsal stream is used in object categorization, but only for a category of manipulable objects. binocular rivalry ͉ continuous flash suppression ͉ dorsal stream ͉ object categorization ͉ tools

show abstract

“…This alternative depends on the suppressed image receiving substantial semantic processing. However, existing evidence suggests that CFS (and interocular suppression more broadly) seems to interfere with visual processes occurring before semantic analysis of words (48,49) and objects (50,51); for example, interocularly suppressed words and objects cannot prime subsequent processing of related stimuli (52), and neurons in medial temporal cortex do not respond to images suppressed through CFS in humans (53) or suppressed through binocular rivalry in monkeys (54). *This hit rate is substantially higher than the 50% QUEST threshold to which the staircasing procedure was set because participants' performance tends to improve during the course of the experiment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language can boost otherwise unseen objects into visual awareness

Lupyan

Ward

2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

254

248

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Linguistic labels (e.g., "chair") seem to activate visual properties of the objects to which they refer. Here we investigated whether language-based activation of visual representations can affect the ability to simply detect the presence of an object. We used continuous flash suppression to suppress visual awareness of familiar objects while they were continuously presented to one eye. Participants made simple detection decisions, indicating whether they saw any image. Hearing a verbal label before the simple detection task changed performance relative to an uninformative cue baseline. Valid labels improved performance relative to no-label baseline trials. Invalid labels decreased performance. Labels affected both sensitivity (d′) and response times. In addition, we found that the effectiveness of labels varied predictably as a function of the match between the shape of the stimulus and the shape denoted by the label. Together, the findings suggest that facilitated detection of invisible objects due to language occurs at a perceptual rather than semantic locus. We hypothesize that when information associated with verbal labels matches stimulus-driven activity, language can provide a boost to perception, propelling an otherwise invisible image into awareness.vision | top-down effects | CFS | penetrability of perception

show abstract

Binocular rivalry and semantic processing: Out of sight, out of mind.

Cited by 62 publications

References 23 publications

Dichoptic reading: The role of meaning in binocular rivalry

Dichoptic reading: The role of meaning in binocular rivalry

Unconscious processing dissociates along categorical lines

Language can boost otherwise unseen objects into visual awareness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About