Binocular rivalry with moving patterns

Wade, Nicholas; Weert, C.M.M. de; Swanston, Michael T

doi:10.3758/bf03203891

Cited by 52 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is generally recognized that rivalry predominance depends strongly upon feature primitives such as orientation (Wade, 1974), spatial frequency (Fable, 1982;Hollins, 1980), contrast (Blake, 1977), and motion (Breese, 1909;Wade, de Weert, & Swanston, 1984). In contrast, the present results indicate that the informational content of rival targets, linguistically defined, has essentially no influence on rivalry dominance.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 53%

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

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 53%

Dichoptic reading: The role of meaning in binocular rivalry

Blake

1988

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 also demonstrates that this difference in separation is due to control rivalry rate differences between the two types of stimuli. This is expected from the psychophysical literature (Breese, 1899;Walker & Powell, 1979 ;Fahle, 1982;Wade et al 1984 ;Blake et al 1985Blake et al , 1998Norman et al 2000). The fact that the rivalry rates in the two BD groups did not differ suggests that BD subjects may have robustly slow rivalry, relatively insensitive to stimulus characteristics.…”

Section: Slow Binocular Rivalry In Bipolar Disordersupporting

confidence: 63%

Slow binocular rivalry in bipolar disorder

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When stimuli are defined by spatial form but also have a temporal component, rivalry is usually possible provided the temporal frequencies are similar (42,43). Over a limited range, faster stimuli will dominate over slow or static stimuli (44)(45)(46)(47). However, this is by no means a general property; for some dichoptic motion combinations, faster stimuli are less dominant (46).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural images dominate in binocular rivalry

Baker

Graf²

2009

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

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological approaches to perception have demonstrated that information encoding by the visual system is informed by the natural environment, both in terms of simple image attributes like luminance and contrast, and more complex relationships corresponding to Gestalt principles of perceptual organization. Here, we ask if this optimization biases perception of visual inputs that are perceptually bistable. Using the binocular rivalry paradigm, we designed stimuli that varied in either their spatiotemporal amplitude spectra or their phase spectra. We found that noise stimuli with ''natural'' amplitude spectra (i.e., amplitude content proportional to 1/f, where f is spatial or temporal frequency) dominate over those with any other systematic spectral slope, along both spatial and temporal dimensions. This could not be explained by perceived contrast measurements, and occurred even though all stimuli had equal energy. Calculating the effective contrast following attenuation by a model contrast sensitivity function suggested that the strong contrast dependency of rivalry provides the mechanism by which binocular vision is optimized for viewing natural images. We also compared rivalry between natural and phase-scrambled images and found a strong preference for natural phase spectra that could not be accounted for by observer biases in a control task. We propose that this phase specificity relates to contour information, and arises either from the activity of V1 complex cells, or from later visual areas, consistent with recent neuroimaging and single-cell work. Our findings demonstrate that human vision integrates information across space, time, and phase to select the input most likely to hold behavioral relevance.amplitude spectrum ͉ interocular suppression ͉ natural image statistics ͉ phase spectrum ͉ bistable perception T he human visual system is tasked with processing and organizing perceptual information relevant to the tasks we routinely perform. Recent investigations of the statistical properties of natural images indicate that the tuning characteristics of early visual mechanisms reflect measurable properties of the world (1). From simple image attributes such as luminance and contrast information (2) to Gestalt rules of perceptual organization such as proximity and good continuation (3, 4), known properties of perceptual systems appear tuned to the statistics of natural images (5-8). As a whole, these studies support the hypothesis that human visual processing has evolved to efficiently encode images from our natural environment (see ref. 1 for a recent review). Here, we directly address this hypothesis by asking if, when the visual system must choose between two competing inputs, it prefers the one most representative of the natural environment.During binocular rivalry, conscious perception alternates between different images presented to the two eyes. It is well established that some stimuli are preferred to others, for example, high-contrast stimuli will dominate over low-contrast stimuli, and thus will be ...

show abstract

Binocular rivalry with moving patterns

Cited by 52 publications

References 24 publications

Dichoptic reading: The role of meaning in binocular rivalry

Dichoptic reading: The role of meaning in binocular rivalry

Slow binocular rivalry in bipolar disorder

Natural images dominate in binocular rivalry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About