The effects of spatial frequency, orientation, and color upon binocular rivalry and monocular pattern alternation

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether or not monocular and binocular rivalry are mediated by the same mechanism. The question was approached by examining, in a series of two experiments, the spatial frequency and orientation tuning characteristics for both forms of rivalry, as well as the effects of color upon monocular and binocular rivalry. The results of Experiment 1 indicate that binocular rivalry is insensitive to spatial frequency and color. In Experiment 2, the effects of spatial frequency and orientation were examined. The results of this experiment indicate that binocular rivalry is less sensitive to changes in orientation than is monocular alternation. There is no effect of color upon binocular rivalry. It was concluded that monocular alternation and binocular rivalry are mediated by different mechanisms ..

On the relation between dichoptic masking and binocular rivalry

“…Mean dominance durations for binocular rivalry using these stimuli (at equal contrast) are shown on log axes in Figure 3. All observers show a clear increase in mean duration as the relative orientation tends to zero, consistent with previous studies (Schor, 1977;Kitterle & Thomas, 1980;OÕShea, 1998;Buckthought et al, 2008). The main exception to this is for observer ST, who shows a Wshaped function, with minima around ±60¡ orientation difference.…”

“…It is maximal when mask and target have the same orientation, and minimal (but still substantial) when they are orthogonal (Baker and Meese, 2007;Levi et al, 1979;Harrad and Hess, 1992), following a Gaussian falloff (Baker and Meese, 2007). In binocular rivalry, the mean dominance duration increases as the angle between the stimuli is reduced (Schor, 1977;Kitterle & Thomas, 1980;OÕShea, 1998;Buckthought et al, 2008). This suggests that strong masking equates to long dominance durations, and vice versa, but this has yet to be shown in a single study using the same stimuli and observers.…”

Binocular rivalry with moving patterns

“…These effects were not evident when the stimuli were viewed as afterimages. Kitterle and Thomas (1980) reported that the frequency of rivalry reversals increased with increasing orientation differences between gratings. Fahle (1982) also found a marked predominance of vertical over horizontal rivalrous lines.…”

“…With static patterns, the transient system could be stimulated by pattern displacements consequent to involuntary eye movements. Kitterle and Thomas (1980) measured only the rate of rivalry and found that this The fact that the higher frequency grating does not necessarily lead to higher predominance is of interest because of its possible relation to stimulus strength and rivalry. Considering stimulus strength as a function of spatial frequency and apparent contrast, it may be that the stimulus strength of the higher contrast grating is lower because it has a lower apparent contrast.…”

Visual perception of the Moiré effect

“…Two identical transmissivity gratings were placed in the arms of the sinoptophor and rotated to each other in order to achieve an angle, 2a, able to generate four or ®ve Moire fringes in the ®eld of view (see Table 1). The gratings were placed neither in horizontal nor in vertical orientation in order to avoid any preferential orientation of the perception (Wade, 1974;Kitterle and Thomas, 1980). The patterns were presented haploscopically, focused at in-®nity, with a subtended angle of 58 that assured a foveal vision.…”