Binocular rivalry: competition and inhibition in visual perception

Alais, David

doi:10.1002/wcs.151

Cited by 58 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 130 publications

(196 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1, 2). While many observers witnessed the stereotypical back-and-forth of binocular rivalry alternations between the eyes, for a substantial number of observers one eye disproportionately dominated visibility.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The conditions instigating binocular rivalry are created by dichoptic presentation of conflicting visual stimuli to the two eyes, thereby provoking reciprocal, alternating periods of perceptual dominance and suppression between the two stimuli when they are viewed for an extended period of time (Alais, 2012, Blake & O'Shea, 2009). Importantly, the amounts of time that one or the other monocular stimulus is seen depends on the relative salience of the two stimuli.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Individual differences in sensory eye dominance reflected in the dynamics of binocular rivalry

Dieter

Blake

2017

Vision Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Normal binocular vision emerges from the combination of neural signals arising within separate monocular pathways. It is natural to wonder whether both eyes contribute equally to the unified cyclopean impression we ordinarily experience. Binocular rivalry, which occurs when the inputs to the two eyes are markedly different, affords a useful means for quantifying the balance of influence exerted by the eyes (called sensory eye dominance, SED) and for relating that degree of balance to other aspects of binocular visual function. However, the precise ways in which binocular rivalry dynamics change when the eyes are unbalanced remain uncharted. Relying on widespread individual variability in the relative predominance of the two eyes as demonstrated in previous studies, we found that an observer’s overall tendency to see one eye more than the other was driven both by differences in the relative duration and frequency of instances of that eye’s perceptual dominance. Specifically, larger imbalances between the eyes were associated with longer and more frequent periods of exclusive dominance for the stronger eye. Increases in occurrences of dominant eye percepts were mediated in part by a tendency to experience “return transitions” to the predominant eye – that is, observers often experienced sequential exclusive percepts of the dominant eye’s image with an intervening mixed percept. Together, these results indicate that the often-observed imbalances between the eyes during binocular rivalry reflect true differences in sensory processing, a finding that has implications for our understanding of the mechanisms underlying binocular vision in general.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in sensory eye dominance reflected in the dynamics of binocular rivalry

Dieter

Blake

2017

Vision Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This finding did not seem to readily follow from the current assumptions regarding why CFS is an effective suppression paradigm. The robust nature of CFS suppression is generally considered to be the result of the transient nature of the mask, reducing the amount neural adaptation during the interocular competition process at retinotopic stages of the visual system (which have often been implicated in the competition process [31], [32]). The continuously moving masks we employed yielded a higher degree of simulated retinotopic neural adaptation than the regular CFS mask and therefore should have been less effective (particularly for the slower motion speeds).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, because at every retinotopic location features such as orientation and contrast change, neurons responsive for these features tend to adapt less compared to static input. In this sense CFS can be understood as a form of binocular rivalry, in which percept switches have been explained (in part) as the result of neural adaptation to the dominant percept and competition between monocular neurons in low-level visual areas [31], [32]. Since the interocular competition process in binocular rivalry has mostly been characterized as happening in low-level visual areas (although recent models acknowledge the possibility for competition between different levels in the hierarchy of the visual system [33], [34]), we focus on the extent to which retinotopically specific neural adaptation can help to predict the effectiveness of CFS (see the General Discussion for further discussion of the role of higher-order adaptation processes in CFS).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving Stimuli Are Less Effectively Masked Using Traditional Continuous Flash Suppression (CFS) Compared to a Moving Mondrian Mask (MMM): A Test Case for Feature-Selective Suppression and Retinotopic Adaptation

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Continuous flash suppression (CFS) is a powerful interocular suppression technique, which is often described as an effective means to reliably suppress stimuli from visual awareness. Suppression through CFS has been assumed to depend upon a reduction in (retinotopically specific) neural adaptation caused by the continual updating of the contents of the visual input to one eye. In this study, we started from the observation that suppressing a moving stimulus through CFS appeared to be more effective when using a mask that was actually more prone to retinotopically specific neural adaptation, but in which the properties of the mask were more similar to those of the to-be-suppressed stimulus. In two experiments, we find that using a moving Mondrian mask (i.e., one that includes motion) is more effective in suppressing a moving stimulus than a regular CFS mask. The observed pattern of results cannot be explained by a simple simulation that computes the degree of retinotopically specific neural adaptation over time, suggesting that this kind of neural adaptation does not play a large role in predicting the differences between conditions in this context. We also find some evidence consistent with the idea that the most effective CFS mask is the one that matches the properties (speed) of the suppressed stimulus. These results question the general importance of retinotopically specific neural adaptation in CFS, and potentially help to explain an implicit trend in the literature to adapt one’s CFS mask to match one’s to-be-suppressed stimuli. Finally, the results should help to guide the methodological development of future research where continuous suppression of moving stimuli is desired.

show abstract

“…Viewing incompatible images in each eye produces binocular rivalry, an unstable state in which the images perceptually alternate irregularly over time (Blake and Logothetis, 2002;Alais, 2012). Each percept lasts a second or two, and alternations continue as long as the rival stimuli are present.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory and Tactile Signals Combine to Influence Vision during Binocular Rivalry

2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resolution of perceptual ambiguity is one function of cross-modal interactions. Here we investigate whether auditory and tactile stimuli can influence binocular rivalry generated by interocular temporal conflict in human subjects. Using dichoptic visual stimuli modulating at different temporal frequencies, we added modulating sounds or vibrations congruent with one or the other visual temporal frequency. Auditory and tactile stimulation both interacted with binocular rivalry by promoting dominance of the congruent visual stimulus. This effect depended on the cross-modal modulation strength and was absent when modulation depth declined to 33%. However, when auditory and tactile stimuli that were too weak on their own to bias binocular rivalry were combined, their influence over vision was very strong, suggesting the auditory and tactile temporal signals combined to influence vision. Similarly, interleaving discrete pulses of auditory and tactile stimuli also promoted dominance of the visual stimulus congruent with the supramodal frequency. When auditory and tactile stimuli were presented at maximum strength, but in antiphase, they had no influence over vision for low temporal frequencies, a null effect again suggesting audio-tactile combination. We also found that the cross-modal interaction was frequency-sensitive at low temporal frequencies, when information about temporal phase alignment can be perceptually tracked. These results show that auditory and tactile temporal processing is functionally linked, suggesting a common neural substrate for the two sensory modalities and that at low temporal frequencies visual activity can be synchronized by a congruent cross-modal signal in a frequency-selective way, suggesting the existence of a supramodal temporal binding mechanism.

show abstract

Binocular rivalry: competition and inhibition in visual perception

Cited by 58 publications

References 130 publications

Individual differences in sensory eye dominance reflected in the dynamics of binocular rivalry

Individual differences in sensory eye dominance reflected in the dynamics of binocular rivalry

Moving Stimuli Are Less Effectively Masked Using Traditional Continuous Flash Suppression (CFS) Compared to a Moving Mondrian Mask (MMM): A Test Case for Feature-Selective Suppression and Retinotopic Adaptation

Auditory and Tactile Signals Combine to Influence Vision during Binocular Rivalry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About