Probing visual consciousness: Rivalry between eyes and images

Bhardwaj, Rishi; O’Shea, Robert P; Alais, David; Parker, Alison E.

doi:10.1167/8.11.2

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first is that suppression is not feature tuned (at least for orientation) in the case of flicker-and-swap rivalry, and the second is that suppression is relatively weak in flicker-and-swap. The point regarding weak suppression in flicker-and-swap rivalry (evident when comparing suppression strength for the two types of rivalry in Figures 2 and 6) confirms the same finding in a recent report on suppression in flicker-andswap rivalry (Bhardwaj, O'Shea, Alais, & Parker, 2008). The lack of specificity for rivalry suppression in the flicker-and-swap paradigm suggests that it does not occur at the stage of early cortical processing where neurons exhibit tight tunings for orientation.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

“…For all probe orientations, suppression strength for conventional rivalry is far greater than for flicker-and-swap rivalry, even in the untuned baseline portion for conventional rivalry. This lack of suppression strength has been reported recently by Bhardwaj et al (2008) and it also agrees with the phenomenal experience of flicker-and-swap rivalry which often appears to produce a less convincing perceptual alternation than is experienced during conventional rivalry. Therefore, on the grounds that their respective suppression strengths differ so markedly, we do not conclude that the untuned general component of conventional rivalry can be regarded as one and the same as flicker-and-swap suppression.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Orientation-tuned suppression in binocular rivalry reveals general and specific components of rivalry suppression

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During binocular rivalry (BR), conflicting monocular images are alternately suppressed from awareness. During suppression of an image, contrast sensitivity for probes is reduced by approximately 0.3-0.5 log units relative to when the image is in perceptual dominance. Previous studies on rivalry suppression have led to controversies concerning the nature and extent of suppression during BR. We tested for feature-specific suppression using orthogonal rivaling gratings and measuring contrast sensitivity to small grating probes at a range of orientations in a 2AFC orientation discrimination task. Results indicate that suppression is not uniform across orientations: suppression was much greater for orientations close to that of the suppressed grating. The higher suppression was specific to a narrow range around the suppressed rival grating, with a tuning similar to V1 orientation bandwidths. A similar experiment tested for spatial frequency tuning and found that suppression was stronger for frequencies close to that of the suppressed grating. Interestingly, no tuned suppression was observed when a flicker-and-swap paradigm was used, suggesting that tuned suppression occurs only for lower-level, interocular rivalry. Together, the results suggest there are two components to rivalry suppression: a general feature-invariant component and an additional component specifically tuned to the rivaling features.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Orientation-tuned suppression in binocular rivalry reveals general and specific components of rivalry suppression

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Increasing the strength of attention would amplify SA and reduce FA, and vice versa. Second, the depth of suppression is weaker (57,58), and the dominance durations are shorter (54) in swapping experiments compared with conventional binocular rivalry. Likewise in our simulations, SA responses had shorter dominance durations than conventional rivalry responses, indicating a weaker competition in SA (Figs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Attention model of binocular rivalry

Rankin

Rinzel

et al. 2017

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

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When the corresponding retinal locations in the two eyes are presented with incompatible images, a stable percept gives way to perceptual alternations in which the two images compete for perceptual dominance. As perceptual experience evolves dynamically under constant external inputs, binocular rivalry has been used for studying intrinsic cortical computations and for understanding how the brain regulates competing inputs. Converging behavioral and EEG results have shown that binocular rivalry and attention are intertwined: binocular rivalry ceases when attention is diverted away from the rivalry stimuli. In addition, the competing image in one eye suppresses the target in the other eye through a pattern of gain changes similar to those induced by attention. These results require a revision of the current computational theories of binocular rivalry, in which the role of attention is ignored. Here, we provide a computational model of binocular rivalry. In the model, competition between two images in rivalry is driven by both attentional modulation and mutual inhibition, which have distinct selectivity (feature vs. eye of origin) and dynamics (relatively slow vs. relatively fast). The proposed model explains a wide range of phenomena reported in rivalry, including the three hallmarks: (i) binocular rivalry requires attention; (ii) various perceptual states emerge when the two images are swapped between the eyes multiple times per second; (iii) the dominance duration as a function of input strength follows Levelt's propositions. With a bifurcation analysis, we identified the parameter space in which the model's behavior was consistent with experimental results.B inocular rivalry is a visual phenomenon in which perception alternates between incompatible monocular images presented to the two eyes. During binocular rivalry, perceptual experience evolves dynamically while the external inputs are held constant. Binocular rivalry thereby provides an opportunity to gain insights about the intrinsic cortical computations underlying visual perception (1, 2).In conventional models of binocular rivalry, the competition between two percepts has been characterized as mutual inhibition between two populations of neurons selective for each of the two stimuli (3-11). Notwithstanding the differences in their details, these models consider the neural processing underlying binocular rivalry to be an automatic process. These models predict, therefore, that the dynamics of binocular rivalry are influenced mainly by bottom-up sensory inputs.Converging experimental evidence has shown, however, that binocular rivalry also depends on attention (for a review, see ref.12). First, EEG has been used to measure a neural correlate of the perceptual alternations during binocular rivalry when observers pay attention to the rival stimuli (13). However, this rivalry-induced modulation of the EEG signal is largely or entirely eliminated when attention is diverted away from the stimuli (14). Second, behavioral experiments comparing the perceptual cons...

show abstract

“…To accommodate evidence favoring eye-based rivalry and evidence favoring stimulus-based rivalry, the notion emerged that CBR and FSR arise from competitive interactions between conflicting neural interpretations emerging at multiple sites within the visual hierarchy (Blake & Logothetis, 2002; Nguyen et al, 2003; Wilson, 2003; Tong et al, 2006; Bhardwaj et al, 2008; Denison & Silver, 2012). This hybrid view promoted a satisfying reconciliation of two seemingly incompatible notions of rivalry.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in the temporal dynamics of binocular rivalry and stimulus rivalry

Patel

Stuit²,

Blake

2014

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Binocular rivalry and stimulus rivalry are two forms of perceptual instability that arise when the visual system is confronted with conflicting stimulus information. In the case of binocular rivalry, dissimilar monocular stimuli are presented to the two eyes for an extended period of time, whereas for stimulus rivalry the dissimilar monocular stimuli are exchanged rapidly and repetitively between the eyes during extended viewing. With both forms of rivalry, one experiences extended durations of exclusive perceptual dominance that fluctuate between the two stimuli. Whether these two forms of rivalry arise within different stages of visual processing remains debatable. Using an individual differences approach, we have found that both stimulus rivalry and binocular rivalry exhibit the same-shaped distribution of dominance durations among a sample of thirty observers and, moreover, that dominance durations measured during binocular and stimulus rivalry are significantly correlated among our sample of observers. Furthermore, we find a significant, positive correlation between alternation rate in binocular rivalry and incidence of stimulus rivalry. These results suggest that the two forms of rivalry may be tapping common neural mechanisms, or at least different mechanisms with comparable time constants. It remains to be learned just why the incidence of binocular rivalry and stimulus rivalry varies so greatly among people.

show abstract

Probing visual consciousness: Rivalry between eyes and images

Cited by 15 publications

References 48 publications

Orientation-tuned suppression in binocular rivalry reveals general and specific components of rivalry suppression

Orientation-tuned suppression in binocular rivalry reveals general and specific components of rivalry suppression

Attention model of binocular rivalry

Individual differences in the temporal dynamics of binocular rivalry and stimulus rivalry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About