Revisiting individual differences in the time course of binocular rivalry.

Simultaneously showing an observer two incompatible displays, one to each eye, causes binocular rivalry, during which the observer regularly switches between perceiving one eye's display and perceiving the other. Observers differ in the rate of this perceptual cycle, and these individual differences have been reported to correlate with differences in the perceptual switch rate for other bistable perception phenomena. Identifying which psychological or neural factors explain this variability can help clarify the mechanisms underlying binocular rivalry and of bistable perception generally. Motivated by the prominent theory that perceptual switches during binocular rivalry are brought about by neural adaptation, we investigated whether perceptual switch rates are correlated with the strength of neural adaptation, indexed by visual aftereffects. We found no compelling evidence for such correlations. Moreover, we did not corroborate previous findings that switch rates are correlated between binocular rivalry and other forms of bistable perception. This latter nonreplication prompted us to perform a meta-analysis of existing research into correlations among forms of bistable perception, which revealed that evidence for such correlations is much weaker than is generally believed. By showing no common factor linking individual differences in binocular rivalry and in our other paradigms, these results fit well with other work that has shown such common factors to be rare among visual phenomena generally.

[1]  S. Engel,et al.  The Independent and Shared Mechanisms of Intrinsic Brain Dynamics: Insights From Bistable Perception , 2018, Front. Psychol..

[2]  P. Dayan,et al.  Space and time in visual context , 2007, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[3]  Tomas Knapen,et al.  GABA Shapes the Dynamics of Bistable Perception , 2013, Current Biology.

[4]  C. Clifford,et al.  A functional angle on some after-effects in cortical vision , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[5]  J. Rinzel,et al.  Noise-induced alternations in an attractor network model of perceptual bistability. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[6]  C. Clifford Perceptual adaptation: motion parallels orientation , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[7]  Sheng He,et al.  Genes contribute to the switching dynamics of bistable perception. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[8]  Frans A. J. Verstraten,et al.  Attentional modulation of adaptation to two-component transparent motion , 1995, Vision Research.

[9]  S. Coren,et al.  An empirical taxonomy of visual illusions , 1976 .

[10]  Joel Pearson,et al.  Sensory memory for ambiguous vision , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[11]  Christopher P. Said,et al.  Normal binocular rivalry in autism: Implications for the excitation/inhibition imbalance hypothesis , 2013, Vision Research.

[12]  H. Wilson,et al.  Dynamics of travelling waves in visual perception , 2001, Nature.

[13]  Carson C. Chow,et al.  Role of mutual inhibition in binocular rivalry. , 2011, Journal of neurophysiology.

[14]  S. R. Lehky An Astable Multivibrator Model of Binocular Rivalry , 1988, Perception.

[15]  Theodoros Karapanagiotidis,et al.  Brain networks underlying bistable perception , 2015, NeuroImage.

[16]  Tomas Knapen,et al.  Opposite Influence of Perceptual Memory on Initial and Prolonged Perception of Sensory Ambiguity , 2012, PloS one.

[17]  ROBERT FOX,et al.  Adaptation to invisible gratings and the site of binocular rivalry suppression , 1974, Nature.

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

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

[20]  Michael H. Herzog,et al.  About individual differences in vision , 2017, Vision Research.

[21]  Michael von Grünau,et al.  A motion aftereffect for long-range troboscopic apparent motion , 1986 .

[22]  A. B. Nutt Binocular vision. , 1945, The British orthoptic journal.

[23]  W. G. Cochran The combination of estimates from different experiments. , 1954 .

[24]  Nava Rubin,et al.  Alternation rate in perceptual bistability is maximal at and symmetric around equi-dominance. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[25]  Tomas Knapen,et al.  Removal of monocular interactions equates rivalry behavior for monocular, binocular, and stimulus rivalries. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[26]  Randolph Blake,et al.  What causes alternations in dominance during binocular rivalry? , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

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

[28]  G. Rees,et al.  Improved estimates for the role of grey matter volume and GABA in bistable perception , 2016, Cortex.

[29]  D. Teller,et al.  Individual Differences in Contrast Sensitivity Functions: The Lowest Spatial Frequency Channels , 1996, Vision Research.

[30]  R Blake,et al.  The Site of Binocular Rivalry Suppression , 1979, Perception.

[31]  M. Herzog,et al.  Is there a common factor for vision? , 2014, Journal of vision.

[32]  Nava Rubin,et al.  The dynamics of bi-stable alternation in ambiguous motion displays: a fresh look at plaids , 2003, Vision Research.

[33]  A. Field Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: a Monte Carlo comparison of fixed- and random-effects methods. , 2001, Psychological methods.

[34]  Richard H. A. H. Jacobs,et al.  The time course of binocular rivalry reveals a fundamental role of noise. , 2006, Journal of vision.

[35]  J. Pettigrew,et al.  Does Interhemispheric Competition Mediate Motion-Induced Blindness? A Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Study , 2003, Perception.

[36]  Frans A. J. Verstraten,et al.  Independent Aftereffects of Attention and Motion , 2000, Neuron.

[37]  J. Pettigrew,et al.  A Common Oscillator for Perceptual Rivalries? , 2003, Perception.

[38]  J. Gibson,et al.  Adaptation, after-effect and contrast in the perception of tilted lines. I. Quantitative studies , 1937 .

[39]  Steven Mark Miller,et al.  The effect of stimulus strength on binocular rivalry rate in healthy individuals: Implications for genetic, clinical and individual differences studies , 2017, Physiology & Behavior.

[40]  A. Kohn Visual adaptation: physiology, mechanisms, and functional benefits. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[41]  M. Georgeson,et al.  Afterimages of sinusoidal, square-wave and compound gratings , 1985, Vision Research.

[42]  W. Levelt,et al.  The ‘laws’ of binocular rivalry: 50 years of Levelt’s propositions , 2015, Vision Research.

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

[44]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Multistability in perception: binding sensory modalities, an overview , 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[45]  Tania B. Huedo-Medina,et al.  Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? , 2006, Psychological methods.

[46]  David J. Heeger,et al.  Motion-Induced Blindness and Troxler Fading: Common and Different Mechanisms , 2014, PloS one.

[47]  Makio Kashino,et al.  Separability and commonality of auditory and visual bistable perception. , 2012, Cerebral cortex.

[48]  Randolph Blake,et al.  The effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation on visual rivalry. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[49]  D H Kelly,et al.  Measurements of chromatic and achromatic afterimages. , 1993, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

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

[51]  R. Blake,et al.  Temporal perturbations of binocular rivalry , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[52]  Yee-Joon Kim,et al.  Stochastic resonance in binocular rivalry , 2006, Vision Research.

[53]  J. Brascamp,et al.  Eye tracking under dichoptic viewing conditions: a practical solution , 2017, Behavior research methods.

[54]  G. Rees,et al.  Predicting the Stream of Consciousness from Activity in Human Visual Cortex , 2005, Current Biology.

[55]  Frans A. J. Verstraten,et al.  The motion aftereffect , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[56]  Frans A. J. Verstraten,et al.  Nulling the motion aftereffect with dynamic random-dot stimuli: limitations and implications. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[57]  J. Aloimonos,et al.  On the kinetic depth effect , 1989, Biological Cybernetics.

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

[59]  K. Ukai,et al.  Binocular Rivalry Alternation Rate Declines with Age , 2003, Perceptual and motor skills.

[60]  R. Blake,et al.  A fresh look at the temporal dynamics of binocular rivalry , 1989, Biological Cybernetics.

[61]  Jocelyn L. Sy,et al.  The time course of binocular rivalry during the phases of the menstrual cycle , 2016, Journal of vision.

[62]  G. Brindley,et al.  Two new properties of foveal after‐images and a photochemical hypothesis to explain them , 1962, The Journal of physiology.

[63]  Xiao-Hua Zhou,et al.  Statistical Methods for Meta‐Analysis , 2008 .

[64]  Frans A. J. Verstraten,et al.  Perceptual manifestations of fast neural plasticity: Motion priming, rapid motion aftereffect and perceptual sensitization , 2005, Vision Research.

[65]  V. Virsu,et al.  Long-lasting afterimages caused by neural adaptation , 1977, Vision Research.

[66]  Stephan Riek,et al.  Interhemispheric switching mediates perceptual rivalry , 2000, Current Biology.

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

[68]  R. Blake,et al.  Role of threshold in afterimage visibility. , 1982, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[69]  J. Pettigrew,et al.  Plaid Motion Rivalry: Correlates with Binocular Rivalry and Positive Mood State , 2006, Perception.

[70]  M. Webster,et al.  Visual adaptation: Neural, psychological and computational aspects , 2007, Vision Research.

[71]  Dov Sagi,et al.  Motion-induced blindness in normal observers , 2001, Nature.

[72]  Geraint Rees,et al.  Structural and functional fractionation of right superior parietal cortex in bistable perception , 2011, Current Biology.

[73]  Raymond van Ee,et al.  Dynamics of perceptual bi-stability for stereoscopic slant rivalry and a comparison with grating, house-face, and Necker cube rivalry , 2005, Vision Research.

[74]  H. Barlow,et al.  Evidence for a Physiological Explanation of the Waterfall Phenomenon and Figural After-effects , 1963, Nature.

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

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

[77]  Dwight J. Kravitz,et al.  Slower Rate of Binocular Rivalry in Autism , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[78]  P. Christiaan Klink,et al.  General Validity of Levelt's Propositions Reveals Common Computational Mechanisms for Visual Rivalry , 2008, PloS one.

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

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

[81]  J. Pettigrew Searching for the Switch: Neural Bases for Perceptual Rivalry Alternations , 2001 .

[82]  R Blake,et al.  Another perspective on the visual motion aftereffect. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[83]  Derek H. Arnold,et al.  Interpreting the Temporal Dynamics of Perceptual Rivalries , 2014, Perception.

[84]  R. van Ee,et al.  Percept-choice sequences driven by interrupted ambiguous stimuli: a low-level neural model. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[85]  M. Grabowecky,et al.  Long-Term Speeding in Perceptual Switches Mediated by Attention-Dependent Plasticity in Cortical Visual Processing , 2007, Neuron.

[86]  Alexander Pastukhov,et al.  Cumulative history quantifies the role of neural adaptation in multistable perception. , 2011, Journal of vision.