Does valence influence perceptual bias towards incongruence during binocular rivalry?

Altered functional connectivity: A possible reason for reduced performance during visual cognition involving scene incongruence and negative affect

“…The mean reaction time (averaged across trials and subjects) was calculated for congruent and incongruent percepts separately within each valence category. No significant difference was seen between the mean reaction time of congruent and incongruent percepts within any of the valence categories and also between valence categories ( Zacharia et al, 2020a ). Therefore, the mean reaction time was pooled across percepts and valence categories which provided us with a time window of 400 ms before the response onset (Resp-400 ms) for analysis ( Fig.…”

“…The congruency rating score was significantly different between congruent and incongruent stimuli ( Table 1 ). The details regarding the standardization process can be found in ( Zacharia et al, 2020a ).…”

“…Each block consisted of 6 pairs of pictures with one specific valence i.e., positive, negative, or neutral and each pair was repeated 50 times which provided a total of 900 trials (3 blocks X 6 pairs X 50 trials). For half of the trials, the congruent pictures were presented to the right eye and for the other half, they were presented to the left eye ( Zacharia et al, 2020a ) .

Fig.

…”

“…The primary investigation measured the perceptual bias by calculating the dominance duration of congruent and incongruent stimuli within each valence category. The results revealed a perceptual bias towards incongruence when associated with negative and neutral valence but not with positive suggesting a possible valence-congruence interaction during visual perception ( Zacharia et al, 2020a ). In the next study, the influence of the prestimulus brain state on the perceptual bias of context congruity was investigated and specific pre-stimulus microstates were found to precede the perception of scene incongruency specific to valence indicating that in addition to stimulus attributes, the pre-stimulus intrinsic brain activity could be an important determinant during visual perception ( Zacharia et al, 2020b ).…”

You won’t believe what this guy is doing with the potato: The ObjAct stimulus-set depicting human actions on congruent and incongruent objects

“…There, some used line drawings (Biederman et al, 1982;De Graef, Christiaens, & D'Ydewalle, 1990;Henderson & Hollingworth, 1998;Hollingworth & Henderson, 2000, while others used real-life scenes that were either photographed (Coco, Nuthmann, & Dimigen, 2020;Proverbio & Riva, 2009;Underwood, Templeman, Lamming, & Foulsham, 2008;Underwood & Foulsham, 2006) or digitally edited (Davenport & Potter, 2004;Demiral, Malcolm, & Henderson, 2012;Draschkow, Heikel, Võ, Fiebach, & Sassenhagen, 2018;Underwood, Humphreys, & Cross, 2007), and there were also studies using videos (Sitnikova, Kuperberg, & Holcomb, 2003;Sitnikova, Holcomb, Kiyonaga, & Kuperberg, 2008). For the scenes, again, some manipulated the probability of the object being in the scene (e.g., Bonitz & Gordon, 2008;Zacharia, Ahuja, Kaur, Mehta, & Sharma, 2020), while others also manipulated its probability of being in a certain location in the scene (e.g., Võ & Wolfe, 2013), or the object's obedience to the rules of gravity (e.g., Võ & Henderson, 2011).…”