Semantic, Syntactic, and Associative Context Effects in a Stereoscopic Rivalry Situation

Rommetveit, Ragnar; Toch, Hans; Svendsen, Dagmund

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.1968.tb00528.x

Cited by 14 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, their procedures more closely resembled those involved in dichoptic masking, and their results thus have no immediate bearing on issues concerning binocular rivalry suppression. Actually, this same argument can be applied to several other studies (e.g., Rommetveit, Toch, & Svendsen, 1968), the results from which have been interpreted in favor of a cognitive theory of binocular rivalry (Walker, 1978). In general, we believe it is important to distinguish between binocular rivalry and dichoptic masking.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Binocular rivalry and semantic processing: Out of sight, out of mind.

Zimba¹,

Blake²

1983

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies of binocular rivalry have shown that some aspects of a phenomenally suppressed stimulus remain available for visual analysis. The question remains, however, whether this analysis extends to the case of semantic information. This experiment examines that question using a semantic-priming paradigm in which prime words were briefly flashed to an eye during either dominance or suppression phases of binocular rivalry. Reaction times on a lexical-decision task were significantly shortened (the semantic-priming effect) only when prime words were presented to an eye during dominance; suppression acted to impair word recognition and to eliminate semantic priming. These results are inconsistent with certain cognitive models of binocular rivalry.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Binocular rivalry and semantic processing: Out of sight, out of mind.

Zimba¹,

Blake²

1983

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After monocular priming with one word, observers tended to report seeing the second word that was related to the prime under conditions of rivalry. These results suggest that semantic information can influence predominance during binocular rivalry (Rommetveit, Toch, & Svendsen,1968a, 1968b). However, Blake argued that binocular rivalry may not have truly taken place in these experiments because the target words were flashed for only 400 ms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Semantic and subword priming during binocular suppression

Costello

Jiang

Baartman

et al. 2009

Consciousness and Cognition

118

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In general, stimuli that are familiar and recognizable have an advantage of predominance during binocular rivalry. Recent research has demonstrated that familiar and recognizable stimuli such as upright faces and words in a native language could break interocular suppression faster than their matched controls. In this study, a visible word prime was presented binocularly then replaced by a high-contrast dynamic noise pattern presented to one eye and either a semantically related or unrelated word was introduced to the other eye. We measured how long it took for target words to break from suppression. To investigate word-parts priming, a second experiment also included word pairs that had overlapping subword fragments. Results from both experiments consistently show that semantically related words and words that shared subword fragments were faster to gain dominance compared to unrelated words, suggesting that words, even when interocularly suppressed and invisible, can benefit from semantic and subword priming.

show abstract

“…When observers merely judge which of two stimuli predominates during a given observation period, the possibility of criterion effects cannot be ruled out. Some studies attempted to minimize this problem by using shorter exposure times (e.g., Hastorf & Myro, 1959; Rommetveit, Toch, & Svendsen, 1968a, 1968b), but as a consequence observers may have experienced dichoptic masking, not binocular rivalry. Rivalry requires anywhere from several hundred milliseconds to several seconds to develop (Goldstein, 1970; Liu, Tyler, Schor, & Lunn, 1990; Wolfe, 1983), so when exposure times are extremely brief one must question whether rivalry occurs at all.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do recognizable figures enjoy an advantage in binocular rivalry?

Yu¹,

Blake²

1992

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Five experiments examined whether recognizable stimuli predominate in binocular rivalry. It was found that a face predominated more than did a pattern equated for spatial frequency, luminance, and contrast; an objective reaction time procedure confirmed predominance of the face. The face was still liable to fragmentation as stimulus size increased. Observers tracked exclusive dominance of a picture of a camouflaged figure (a Dalmatian dog) prior to and then following discovery of the figure's presence; control observers received the same protocol with a scrambled version of the dog stimulus. Compared with control results, predominance of the dog picture was higher even before observers knew of the camouflaged figure. Inversion of the dog figure reduced its predominance. Binocular rivalry is sensitive to object-related, configural properties of a stimulus.

show abstract

Semantic, Syntactic, and Associative Context Effects in a Stereoscopic Rivalry Situation

Cited by 14 publications

References 6 publications

Binocular rivalry and semantic processing: Out of sight, out of mind.

Binocular rivalry and semantic processing: Out of sight, out of mind.

Semantic and subword priming during binocular suppression

Do recognizable figures enjoy an advantage in binocular rivalry?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About