Visual competition

Abstract

Binocular rivalry--the alternations in perception that occur when different images are presented to the two eyes--has been the subject of intensive investigation for more than 160 years. The psychophysical properties of binocular rivalry have been well described, but newer imaging and electrophysiological techniques have not resolved the issue of where in the brain rivalry occurs. The most recent evidence supports a view of rivalry as a series of processes, each of which is implemented by neural mechanisms at different levels of the visual hierarchy. Although unanswered questions remain, this view of rivalry might allow us to resolve some of the controversies and apparent contradictions that have emerged from its study.

Predictive coding explains binocular rivalry: An epistemological review

“…The model is however interactionist (in the terminology of Tong, 2003) since it is essential to appreciate both activity at relatively higher levels where predictions are made and the nature of lower level activity in order to have a theoretical framework for understanding either. This accords with recent approaches to binocular rivalry that also stress the interactionist element (e.g., Blake & Logothetis, 2002;Nguyen, Freeman, & Alais, 2003;Tong et al, 2006). The interactionist perspective holds for any pair of levels that communicate with each other as top-down and bottomup throughout the brain.…”

“…This further integrates the debate on how the primary findings on rivalry should be interpreted (Blake, 1989;Leopold & Logothetis, 1999;Tong et al, 2006). It does this by describing one unifying mechanism -prediction error minimisation -rather than a variety of different mechanisms (Blake & Logothetis, 2002). The framework relates to recent computational models (Noest et al, 2007;Wilson, 2007) in as far as it builds on inhibition, adaptation and noise but it gives these notions a distinct functional role and hierarchical dynamics (Dayan, 1998).…”

“…This would explain the increased dominance periods. (ii) With practice, voluntary (endogenous) attention can prolong dominance periods for the attended stimulus without however being able to extinguish rivalry (on the other hand, endogenous attention to properties of the suppressed stimulus will not bring that stimulus out of suppression) (for discussion, see Blake & Logothetis, 2002;Leopold & Logothetis, 1999). This is an example of a top-down process modulating dominance.…”

“…A number of proposals have been made but the neurocognitive mechanism that explains this striking visual effect remains unresolved (for reviews and overviews, see Alais & Blake, 2005;Blake & Logothetis, 2002;Leopold & Logothetis, 1999;Tong, Meng, & Blake, 2006). There are recent formal models that can explain a growing number of psychophysical findings and which fit with a range of neurophysiological facts (Koene, 2006;Moreno-Bote, Rinzel, & Rubin, 2007; van Ee, Nijs, & van Wezel, 2007;Wilson, 2007), and there is a general trend towards approaches that integrate top-down and bottom-up 0010-0277/$ -see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.…”

MEG alpha activity decrease reflects destabilization of multistable percepts

“…More recently, the time course of the [44,45,53,70,69], and psychophysical studies standard EEG frequency bands was measured during [8,16,33,36,41]. A recent review on this issue is given by perceptual reversals between motion directions using the Blake and Logothetis [7]. Most of these rivalry studies same ambiguous motion paradigm as in the study menwere more or less directly concerned with the question, at tioned above [46].…”