1936
DOI: 10.2307/1415556
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Rivalry between Uniocular Negative After-Images and the Vision of the Other Eye

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

1959
1959
2005
2005

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In an extreme case, retinal rivalry will be observed 69,70 or certain diplopia, as we were able to prove and measure in a previous paper. 36 We should not forget that the visual system can achieve balances by suppression.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…In an extreme case, retinal rivalry will be observed 69,70 or certain diplopia, as we were able to prove and measure in a previous paper. 36 We should not forget that the visual system can achieve balances by suppression.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…In a footnote to his well-known study that investigated adaptation or aftereffects to curved lines, Gibson (1933) suggested the potential involvement of binocular rivalry in the apparent transfer of classic afterimages such that the stimulated but closed eye may dominate the open eye under some conditions. Sumner and Watts (1936) developed the argument more explicitly and found empirical support for this proposal by investigating differences in the apparent transfer of afterimages under various stimulus and background conditions. Day (1958) extended the argument even further and generalized its significance to all dichoptic viewing situations that involve aftereffects by stressing the possible confounding effect of the phenomenal overlap of the visual fields from the two eyes.…”
Section: Phenomenal Overlap Of the Monocular Visual Fieldsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Although a thorough treatment of Ahsen's methods for studying eidetic imagery goes beyond the scope of this article, they can be briefly described as creative modifications and uses of early split-brain research (e.g. Penfield, 1952;Sumner & Watts, 1936) and clinical procedures designed to evoke emotional and imagery responses to specified stimuli.…”
Section: Research As Argument Constructionmentioning
confidence: 99%