Stimulus rivalry and binocular rivalry share a common neural substrate

When two incompatible images are shown separately to each eye, a perceptual process known as binocular rivalry occurs by which the two images compete for awareness. The site of competition for binocular rivalry has been a topic of debate, and recent theories are that it may occur either at low levels of the visual system where the inputs from the two eyes are combined or at high levels of the visual system where the two images are processed. One of the major pieces of evidence for a high-level image account of rivalry is a phenomenon known as stimulus rivalry, in which two competing stimuli are swapped between the eyes at 3 Hz. However, there is little available neurophysiological evidence for a neural substrate for this high-level competition. Here, we used frequency tagging of two competing stimuli in binocular rivalry and stimulus rivalry in humans to evaluate whether the steady-state visually evoked potentials (SSVEPs) show similar signatures of neural competition for both conditions. We found that flickering the stimuli generates spectral power at the tagged frequencies in both types of rivalry in the early visual cortex. We then quantified dynamic signatures of competition by tracking amplitude changes in the frequency tags, which showed that both types of rivalry colocalized in occipital regions of the cortex. Thus, contrary to our hypothesis that stimulus rivalry was being mediated by high-level competition between the images, we find that neural competition measured by the SSVEP instead suggests that the sites of competition for stimulus rivalry and binocular rivalry may similarly include the occipital pole and middle temporal gyrus (hMT+/V5) of the visual system, consistent with a low-level, binocular interpretation.

[1]  M. Davies Glyn Humphreys: Attention, Binding, Motion-Induced Blindness , 2017 .

[2]  Bin He,et al.  Deactivation in the posterior mid-cingulate cortex reflects perceptual transitions during binocular rivalry: Evidence from simultaneous EEG-fMRI , 2017, NeuroImage.

[3]  J. Mendola,et al.  Comparison of stimulus rivalry to binocular rivalry with functional magnetic resonance imaging. , 2015, Journal of vision.

[4]  Justin M. Ales,et al.  The steady-state visual evoked potential in vision research: A review. , 2015, Journal of vision.

[5]  R. Blake,et al.  Individual differences in the temporal dynamics of binocular rivalry and stimulus rivalry , 2015, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[6]  Randolph Blake,et al.  A monocular contribution to stimulus rivalry , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  A. Kleinschmidt,et al.  Temporal Tuning Properties along the Human Ventral Visual Stream , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[8]  Temporal Analysis of Image-Rivalry Suppression , 2012, PloS one.

[9]  Rachel N. Denison,et al.  Distinct Contributions of the Magnocellular and Parvocellular Visual Streams to Perceptual Selection , 2012, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[10]  Shaul Hochstein,et al.  High-Level Binocular Rivalry Effects , 2011, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[11]  Peng Zhang,et al.  Binocular Rivalry Requires Visual Attention , 2011, Neuron.

[12]  J. Mendola,et al.  Bistable Percepts in the Brain: fMRI Contrasts Monocular Pattern Rivalry and Binocular Rivalry , 2010, PloS one.

[13]  A. Cichocki,et al.  Steady-state visually evoked potentials: Focus on essential paradigms and future perspectives , 2010, Progress in Neurobiology.

[14]  R. Srinivasan,et al.  Nonlinear SSVEP responses are sensitive to the perceptual binding of visual hemifields during conventional ‘eye’ rivalry and interocular ‘percept’ rivalry , 2009, Brain Research.

[15]  Theodor Landis,et al.  Right parietal brain activity precedes perceptual alternation of bistable stimuli. , 2009, Cerebral cortex.

[16]  D. Spinelli,et al.  Spatiotemporal analysis of the cortical sources of the steady‐state visual evoked potential , 2007, Human brain mapping.

[17]  Valer Jurcak,et al.  10/20, 10/10, and 10/5 systems revisited: Their validity as relative head-surface-based positioning systems , 2007, NeuroImage.

[18]  Nikos K. Logothetis,et al.  Temporal frequency and contrast tagging bias the type of competition in interocular switch rivalry , 2007, Vision Research.

[19]  R. Blake,et al.  Neural bases of binocular rivalry , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[20]  R. Ilmoniemi,et al.  Interpreting magnetic fields of the brain: minimum norm estimates , 2006, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[21]  W. Ehrenstein,et al.  Eye preference within the context of binocular functions , 2005, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[22]  R. Eckhorn,et al.  Perception-related modulations of local field potential power and coherence in primary visual cortex of awake monkey during binocular rivalry. , 2004, Cerebral cortex.

[23]  N. Logothetis,et al.  Visual competition , 2002, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[24]  N. Logothetis,et al.  Multistable phenomena: changing views in perception , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[25]  D. P. Russell,et al.  Increased Synchronization of Neuromagnetic Responses during Conscious Perception , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[26]  R. Blake,et al.  Rival ideas about binocular rivalry , 1999, Vision Research.

[27]  A. Norcia,et al.  A method for investigating binocular rivalry in real-time with the steady-state VEP , 1997, Vision Research.

[28]  Robert P. O'Shea,et al.  Effects of Orientation and Spatial Frequency on Monocular and Binocular Rivalry , 1997, ICONIP.

[29]  David A. Leopold,et al.  What is rivalling during binocular rivalry? , 1996, Nature.

[30]  A. Norcia,et al.  An adaptive filter for steady-state evoked responses. , 1995, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[31]  R. Blake A neural theory of binocular rivalry. , 1989, Psychological review.