Staying focused: a functional account of perceptual suppression during binocular rivalry.

Presenting different images to either eye can induce perceptual switching, with alternating disappearances of each image--a phenomenon called binocular rivalry. We believe that disappearances during binocular rivalry can be driven by a process that facilitates visibility near the point of fixation. As the point of fixation is tied neither to a particular stimulus nor to a specific eye, indifference to both would be an essential characteristic for the process we envisage. Many factors that influence disappearances during binocular rivalry scale with distance in depth from fixation. Of these, here we use blur. We break the links between this cue and both eye of origin and stimulus type. We find that perceptual dominance can track a better focused image as it is swapped between the eyes and that perceptual switches can be driven by alternating the focus of images fixed in each eye. This implies that, as a determinant of suppression selectivity, blur is functionally independent from both eye of origin and stimulus type. Our data and theoretical account suggest that binocular rivalry is not an irrelevant laboratory curiosity but, rather, that it is a product of a functional adaptation that promotes visibility in cluttered environments.

[1]  Hiroshi Ono,et al.  Leonardo's constraint: two opaque objects cannot be seen in the same direction. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[2]  Thomas C. Toppino,et al.  Enduring interest in perceptual ambiguity: alternating views of reversible figures. , 2004, Psychological bulletin.

[3]  M. Fahle Non-fusable stimuli and the role of binocular inhibition in normal and pathologic vision, especially strabismus , 1983, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

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

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

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

[7]  D. Heeger,et al.  Neuronal activity in human primary visual cortex correlates with perception during binocular rivalry , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[8]  Stephen A. Engel,et al.  Interocular rivalry revealed in the human cortical blind-spot representation , 2001, Nature.

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

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

[11]  David A. Leopold,et al.  Binocular rivalry and the illusion of monocular vision , 2004 .

[12]  Shinsuke Shimojo,et al.  Interocularly unpaired zones escape local binocular matching , 1994, Vision Research.

[13]  R. P. O'Shea,et al.  Binocular rivalry in split-brain observers. , 2003, Journal of vision.

[14]  D. Purves,et al.  Similarities in normal and binocularly rivalrous viewing. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[16]  Hermann von Helmholtz,et al.  Treatise on Physiological Optics , 1962 .

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

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

[19]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Psychophysical magic: rendering the visible ‘invisible’ , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[20]  R. Deichmann,et al.  Eye-specific effects of binocular rivalry in the human lateral geniculate nucleus , 2005, Nature.

[21]  T. Shors,et al.  Control of interocular suppression as a function of differential image blur , 1992, Vision Research.

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

[23]  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.

[24]  R. Blake,et al.  Spatial zones of binocular rivalry in central and peripheral vision , 1992, Visual Neuroscience.

[25]  C. Clifford,et al.  Perceptual Grouping of Biological Motion Promotes Binocular Rivalry , 2004, Current Biology.

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

[27]  Clifton Schor,et al.  Ocular Dominance and the Interocular Suppression of Blur in Monovision , 1987, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[28]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Real world occlusion constraints and binocular rivalry , 1990, Vision Research.

[29]  W. Dörrenhaus Musterspezifischer visueller Wettstreit , 1975, Naturwissenschaften.

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

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

[32]  H. Wallach,et al.  The kinetic depth effect. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

[33]  Peter Lennie,et al.  Binocular integration of partially occluded surfaces , 2002, Vision Research.

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

[35]  Joel Pearson,et al.  Determinants of visual awareness following interruptions during rivalry. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[36]  L. A. N. Esq.,et al.  LXI. Observations on some remarkable optical phænomena seen in Switzerland; and on an optical phænomenon which occurs on viewing a figure of a crystal or geometrical solid , 1832 .