Individual differences point to two separate processes involved in the resolution of binocular rivalry

Abstract

Although binocular rivalry is different from other perceptually bistable phenomena in requiring interocular conflict, it also shares numerous features with those phenomena. This raises the question of whether, and to what extent, the neural bases of binocular rivalry and other bistable phenomena overlap. Here we examine this question using an individual-differences approach. In a first experiment, observers reported perception during four binocular rivalry tasks that differed in the features and retinal locations of the stimuli used. Perceptual dominance durations were highly correlated when compared between stimuli that differed in location only. Correlations were substantially weaker, however, when comparing stimuli comprised of different features. Thus, individual differences in binocular-rivalry perception partly reflect a feature-specific factor that is not shared among all variants of binocular rivalry. Our second experiment again included several binocular rivalry variants, but also a different form of bistability: moving plaid rivalry. Correlations in dominance durations between binocular rivalry variants that differed in feature content were again modest. Moreover, and surprisingly, correlations between binocular rivalry and moving plaid rivalry were of similar magnitude. This indicates a second, more general, factor underlying individual differences in binocular rivalry perception: one that is shared across binocular rivalry and moving plaid rivalry. We propose that the first, feature-specific factor corresponds to feature-tuned mechanisms involved in the treatment of interocular conflict, whereas the second, general factor corresponds to mechanisms involved in representing surfaces. These latter mechanisms would operate at a binocular level and be central to both binocular rivalry and other forms of bistability.

Instability with a purpose: how the visual brain makes decisions in a volatile world

“…Multistable illusions are enormously diverse, involving visibility or audibility, perceptual grouping, visual depth or motion, and many kinds of sensory scenes, from schematic to naturalistic. Average switching rates differ greatly and range over at least two orders of magnitude [19], depending on sensory scene, perceptual grouping [53,112,125], continuous or intermittent presentation [64,72], attentional condition [88], individual observer [16,32,89], and many other factors.…”

Does Cortical Inhibition Explain the Correlation Between Bistable Perception Paradigms?

“…Investigating which other bistable phenomena are correlated with binocular rivalry in terms of the time course of their perceptual fluctuations can increase scientific understanding of binocular rivalry by identifying common factors that drive the perceptual cycles across multiple paradigms. Previous studies ( Brascamp et al., 2019 ; Cao et al., 2018 ; Sheppard & Pettigrew, 2006 ) have indicated that the rate at which perception switches (and, relatedly, the average duration of individual percepts) is strongly correlated between binocular rivalry and bistable plaid perception ( Figure 1 ), suggesting a shared mechanism underlying both phenomena. The next logical question is as follows: what is this mechanism?…”

“…The specifications of this stimulus were identical to those of one of the stimuli (“small grating stimulus”) used in a previous study ( Brascamp et al., 2019 , p. 3). Sinusoidal gratings (spatial frequency of 2.0 c/dva, Michelson contrast 0.5, mean luminance same as background luminance) were presented within an annular aperture (inner radius 0.37 dva, outer radius of 0.85 dva) on two separate monitors viewed through a mirror stereoscope.…”

“…In addition, we include a bistable structure-from-motion stimulus ( Figure 2 ). While correlated perceptual dynamics have been consistently observed for the combination of binocular rivalry and bistable plaid perception ( Brascamp et al., 2019 ; Cao et al., 2018 ; Sheppard & Pettigrew, 2006 ), this picture is less consistent for other combinations of bistable stimuli, including the combination of binocular rivalry and bistable structure-from-motion ( Brascamp et al., 2018 ; Cao et al., 2018 show no significant correlation, whereas Steinwurzel et al., 2020 show a positive correlation between switch rates in these two paradigms). Adding a structure-from-motion stimulus to our battery, therefore, allowed us to reexamine any correlation with the other bistable phenomena and, if it is observed, to test whether it is (partly) accounted for by variance in the strength of surround suppression.…”

Fluctuations of consciousness, mood, and science: The interhemispheric switch and sticky switch models two decades on

“…This type of individual variation in BR temporal parameters was historically a focus of interest (reviewed in Wade & Ngo, 2013; see also Miller et al, 2012) but as mentioned, the trend in BR research prior to our 1998 publication was to divert attention from interindividual differences. The current literature is reporting interesting new findings regarding individual variation in BR dynamics (e.g., Brascamp, Becker, & Hambrick, 2018; Brascamp, Qian, Hambrick, & Becker, 2019; Patel, Stuit, & Blake, 2015) and we continue to contribute to such research (Law, Miller, & Ngo, 2017; Law et al, in preparation). Here again, fluctuations of perspectives in science can be observed 20…”