Deconstructing continuous flash suppression.

In this paper, we asked to what extent the depth of interocular suppression engendered by continuous flash suppression (CFS) varies depending on spatiotemporal properties of the suppressed stimulus and CFS suppressor. An answer to this question could have implications for interpreting the results in which CFS influences the processing of different categories of stimuli to different extents. In a series of experiments, we measured the selectivity and depth of suppression (i.e., elevation in contrast detection thresholds) as a function of the visual features of the stimulus being suppressed and the stimulus evoking suppression, namely, the popular "Mondrian" CFS stimulus (N. Tsuchiya & C. Koch, 2005). First, we found that CFS differentially suppresses the spatial components of the suppressed stimulus: Observers' sensitivity for stimuli of relatively low spatial frequency or cardinally oriented features was more strongly impaired in comparison to high spatial frequency or obliquely oriented stimuli. Second, we discovered that this feature-selective bias primarily arises from the spatiotemporal structure of the CFS stimulus, particularly within information residing in the low spatial frequency range and within the smooth rather than abrupt luminance changes over time. These results imply that this CFS stimulus operates by selectively attenuating certain classes of low-level signals while leaving others to be potentially encoded during suppression. These findings underscore the importance of considering the contribution of low-level features in stimulus-driven effects that are reported under CFS.

[1]  David J. Field,et al.  Emergence of simple-cell receptive field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images , 1996, Nature.

[2]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[3]  Andrew Parker,et al.  Detection and discrimination mechanisms in the striate cortex of Old World monkeys , 1990 .

[4]  P. Sterzer,et al.  Breaking Continuous Flash Suppression: A New Measure of Unconscious Processing during Interocular Suppression? , 2011, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[5]  D. Alais,et al.  Orientation-tuned suppression in binocular rivalry reveals general and specific components of rivalry suppression. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[6]  R. Blake,et al.  Adaptation aftereffects to facial expressions suppressed from visual awareness. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[7]  H. Levitt Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  David Alais,et al.  Motion streaks in fast motion rivalry cause orientation-selective suppression. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[9]  Erich W Graf,et al.  Natural images dominate in binocular rivalry , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  R. Malach,et al.  The link between fMRI-BOLD activation and perceptual awareness is "stream-invariant" in the human visual system. , 2011, Cerebral cortex.

[11]  Kazushi Maruya,et al.  Adaptation to invisible motion results in low-level but not high-level aftereffects. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[12]  Frans A. J. Verstraten,et al.  The Scope and Limits of Top-Down Attention in Unconscious Visual Processing , 2006, Current Biology.

[13]  E. Graf,et al.  On the relation between dichoptic masking and binocular rivalry , 2009, Vision Research.

[14]  R. Fox,et al.  Increment detection thresholds during binocular rivalry suppression , 1970 .

[15]  R. Blake Threshold conditions for binocular rivalry. , 1977, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  R. Blake,et al.  Interocular suppression differentially affects achromatic and chromatic mechanisms , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[17]  Frans A. J. Verstraten,et al.  Suppressed images selectively affect the dominant percept during binocular rivalry. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[18]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Reversing ocular dominance and suppression in a single flash , 1984, Vision Research.

[19]  Bruce C. Hansen,et al.  Anisotropic local contrast normalization: The role of stimulus orientation and spatial frequency bandwidths in the oblique and horizontal effect perceptual anisotropies , 2006, Vision Research.

[20]  D. Field,et al.  Visual sensitivity, blur and the sources of variability in the amplitude spectra of natural scenes , 1997, Vision Research.

[21]  David Alais,et al.  Strength and coherence of binocular rivalry depends on shared stimulus complexity , 2007, Vision Research.

[22]  C. Koch,et al.  Continuous flash suppression reduces negative afterimages , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[23]  M. Fahle Binocular rivalry: Suppression depends on orientation and spatial frequency , 1982, Vision Research.

[24]  W. Levelt On binocular rivalry , 1965 .

[25]  Sheng He,et al.  Processing of Invisible Stimuli: Advantage of Upright Faces and Recognizable Words in Overcoming Interocular Suppression , 2007, Psychological science.

[26]  P. Sterzer,et al.  High-level face shape adaptation depends on visual awareness: evidence from continuous flash suppression. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[27]  Kilho Shin,et al.  The effect of spatial attention on invisible stimuli , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[28]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[29]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Journal Section: Behavior/systems/cognitive Title: Semantic Analysis Does Not Occur in the Absence of Awareness Induced by Interocular Suppression Abbreviated Title: No Semantic Processing during Interocular Suppression , 2022 .

[30]  Hugh R Wilson,et al.  Minimal physiological conditions for binocular rivalry and rivalry memory , 2007, Vision Research.

[31]  Katie L. H. Gray,et al.  Preferential processing of fear faces: emotional content vs. low-level visual properties , 2010 .

[32]  R. Fox,et al.  Binocular rivalry and reciprocal inhibition , 1969 .

[33]  David Alais,et al.  Increasing depth of binocular rivalry suppression along two visual pathways , 2003, Vision Research.

[34]  Geraint Rees,et al.  Electromagnetic responses to invisible face stimuli during binocular suppression , 2009, NeuroImage.

[35]  F. Fang,et al.  Cortical responses to invisible objects in the human dorsal and ventral pathways , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[36]  Sheng He,et al.  Semantic and subword priming during binocular suppression , 2009, Consciousness and Cognition.

[37]  R. Blake,et al.  Binocular rivalry suppression: insensitive to spatial frequency and orientation change. , 1974, Vision research.

[38]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Binocular Rivalry and Motion Perception , 1998, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[39]  P. Wenderoth,et al.  The depth and selectivity of suppression in binocular rivalry , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[40]  R. Fox,et al.  Detection of motion during binocular rivalry suppression. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[41]  B. Bahrami,et al.  Attentional Load Modulates Responses of Human Primary Visual Cortex to Invisible Stimuli , 2007, Current Biology.

[42]  D M Levi,et al.  Humans deprived of normal binocular vision have binocular interactions tuned to size and orientation. , 1979, Science.

[43]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Strength of early visual adaptation depends on visual awareness. , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[44]  M. Hollins,et al.  Adaptation of the binocular rivalry mechanism. , 1980, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[45]  T. Meese,et al.  Binocular contrast interactions: Dichoptic masking is not a single process , 2007, Vision Research.

[46]  Brian J. Murphy,et al.  Intercepting the First Pass: Rapid Categorization is Suppressed for Unseen Stimuli , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[47]  Jeroen J. A. van Boxtel,et al.  Dichoptic masking and binocular rivalry share common perceptual dynamics. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[48]  R. Blake,et al.  Fearful expressions gain preferential access to awareness during continuous flash suppression. , 2007, Emotion.

[49]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Depth of interocular suppression associated with continuous flash suppression, flash suppression, and binocular rivalry. , 2006, Journal of vision.

[50]  P. Walker Stochastic properties of binocular rivalry alternations , 1975 .

[51]  A. Watson,et al.  Quest: A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[52]  Sheng He,et al.  Cortical Responses to Invisible Faces: Dissociating Subsystems for Facial-Information Processing , 2006, Current Biology.

[53]  J. Movshon,et al.  The statistical reliability of signals in single neurons in cat and monkey visual cortex , 1983, Vision Research.

[54]  Sheng He,et al.  Seeing the invisible: The scope and limits of unconscious processing in binocular rivalry , 2008 .

[55]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Natural image statistics and neural representation. , 2001, Annual review of neuroscience.

[56]  J. Robson,et al.  Application of fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings , 1968, The Journal of physiology.

[57]  David Carmel,et al.  How to Create and Use Binocular Rivalry , 2010, Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE.

[58]  Binocular rivalry between single lines viewed as real images and afterimages , 1975 .

[59]  Robert P. O'Shea,et al.  The effect of spatial frequency and field size on the spread of exclusive visibility in binocular rivalry , 1997, Vision Research.

[60]  C W Tyler,et al.  Colour bit-stealing to enhance the luminance resolution of digital displays on a single pixel basis. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[61]  Y Yang,et al.  On the Variety of Percepts Associated with Dichoptic Viewing of Dissimilar Monocular Stimuli , 1992, Perception.

[62]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  Unconscious processing dissociates along categorical lines , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[63]  Kunihiko Kaneko,et al.  Dynamical systems modeling of Continuous Flash Suppression , 2011, Vision Research.

[64]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Visual Sensitivity Underlying Changes in Visual Consciousness , 2010, Current Biology.

[65]  R. Blake,et al.  Suppression During Binocular Rivalry Broadens Orientation Tuning , 2009, Psychological science.

[66]  Katie L. H. Gray,et al.  High-Level Face Adaptation Without Awareness , 2010, Psychological science.

[67]  Frans A. J. Verstraten,et al.  Slow and fast visual motion channels have independent binocular–rivalry stages , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[68]  David Alais,et al.  Independent Binocular Rivalry Processes for Motion and Form , 2006, Neuron.

[69]  Robin L. Cooper,et al.  Muscle Receptor Organs in the Crayfish Abdomen: A Student Laboratory Exercise in Proprioception , 2010, Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE.

[70]  R. F. Hess,et al.  Binocular integration of contrast information in amblyopia , 1992, Vision Research.

[71]  W. Geisler Visual perception and the statistical properties of natural scenes. , 2008, Annual review of psychology.