Determinants of visual awareness following interruptions during rivalry.

The inability of the human visual system to fuse dissimilar patterns in corresponding regions of the two eyes results in stochastic alternation of perceptual dominance between the two patterns: rivalry. When rivalrous stimuli are presented intermittently their perception is stabilized (Leopold, Wilke, Maier, & Logothetis, 2002). This stability indicates the operation of some kind of perceptual memory across interruptions in stimulation. Here we examined the contents of this perceptual memory to quantify the relative contributions of different sources of information: eye-of-origin, orientation, and color. Stimuli were intermittently presented and, during each blank interruption, we swapped either the color, orientation, or eye of presentation of the gratings. Comparing the percepts reported before and after each interruption allowed us to establish what aspects of perception remained stable. During conventional binocular rivalry, the eye in which the stimulus was presented remained stable across 74% of interruptions. Stimulus color and orientation also had weaker significant effects. When eye-of-origin information was eliminated by alternating the patterns rapidly between the two eyes, stimulus color remained stable across 86% of interruptions. Stimulus orientation again had a weaker but significant effect. These results demonstrate that the mechanisms mediating perceptual stability across interruptions in rivalry can operate at both monocular and binocular levels, much like the mechanisms operating during continuous viewing of rivalrous stimuli. On the basis of this similarity, we speculate that perceptual memory across interruptions in rivalry may involve the same neural representations as visual competition during rivalry. If this is the case, the use of intermittent stimulation in rivalry might permit the investigation of aspects of the mechanisms underlying visual competition that remain hidden during continuous presentation.

[1]  C. Wheatstone.  XVIII. Contributions to the physiology of vision. —Part the first. On some remarkable, and hitherto unobserved, phenomena of binocular vision , 1962, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.

[2]  V. Ramachandran,et al.  Perceptual Organization in Multistable Apparent Motion , 1985, Perception.

[3]  David A. Leopold,et al.  Stable perception of visually ambiguous patterns , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[4]  Timothy J Andrews,et al.  Binocular rivalry and visual awareness , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[6]  I. Kovács,et al.  When the brain changes its mind: interocular grouping during binocular rivalry. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  Hiroshi Ono,et al.  What does the dominant eye dominate? A brief and somewhat contentious review , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  Controlling binocular rivalry , 2001, Vision Research.

[9]  Frank Tong,et al.  Competing Theories of Binocular Rivalry: A Possible Resolution , 2001 .

[10]  Stephen Wallace,et al.  Figure and Ground , 1982 .

[11]  R. Blake,et al.  What is Suppressed during Binocular Rivalry? , 1980, Perception.

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

[13]  Carson C. Chow,et al.  A Spiking Neuron Model for Binocular Rivalry , 2004, Journal of Computational Neuroscience.

[14]  S. Coren,et al.  The dominant eye. , 1976, Psychological bulletin.

[15]  R. L. Knoll,et al.  The Perception of Temporal Order: Fundamental Issues and a General Model , 1973 .

[16]  Charles Wheatstone.  On some remarkable and hitherto unobserved phenomena of binocular vision. , 1962 .

[17]  A. Karni,et al.  A transition between eye and object rivalry determined by stimulus coherence , 2001, Vision Research.

[18]  Hiroshi Ono,et al.  Utrocular discrimination is not sufficient for utrocular identification , 1985, Vision Research.

[19]  Alexander Maier,et al.  Perception of Temporally Interleaved Ambiguous Patterns , 2003, Current Biology.

[20]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Visual Motion Retards Alternations between Conflicting Perceptual Interpretations , 2003, Neuron.

[21]  J. Orbach,et al.  Reversibility of the Necker Cube: I. An Examination of the Concept of “Satiation of Orientation” , 1963, Perceptual and motor skills.

[22]  S J Leat,et al.  Rivalry with Continuous and Flashed Stimuli as a Measure of Ocular Dominance across the Visual Field , 1984, Perception.

[23]  H. Helmholtz.  Helmholtz's Treatise on Physiological Optics , 1963 .

[24]  J. Wolfe.  Resolving perceptual ambiguity , 1996, Nature.