Eye-specific information biases perceived direction of bistable motion.

While eye-of origin information is normally not accessible to observers, processing of visual information within a monocular channel does contribute to our final percept. Here we investigate if visual information is processed more efficiently when it is contained within a monocular channel or across two eyes and how it affects visual perception. Specifically, we used a bistable apparent motion display, a motion quartet, to investigate the role of eye-specific information in determining perceived motion direction. To an observer, this ambiguous display leads to the perception of either horizontal or vertical motion. We attempted to bias perceived direction by presenting separate spatial halves of the motion quartet to each eye. Our results show that observers were more likely to see horizontal motion when top and bottom halves of the quartet was presented to separate eyes. Similarly, when left and right halves were presented dichoptically, observers reported viewing more vertical motion. This change in proportion of observed motion direction indicates that eye specific information is processed more efficiently and can bias overall perception.

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

[2]  D. V. van Essen,et al.  The representation of the visual field in parvicellular and magnocellular layers of the lateral geniculate nucleus in the macaque monkey , 1984, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[3]  Robert H. Wurtz,et al.  Thalamic pathways for active vision , 2011, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[4]  R H Cormack,et al.  What masks utrocular discrimination , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[5]  R K Jones,et al.  Why two eyes are better than one: the two views of binocular vision. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  W. Levick,et al.  EVIDENCE THAT MCILWAIN'S PERIPHERY EFFECT IS NOT A STRAY LIGHT ARTIFACT. , 1965, Journal of neurophysiology.

[7]  D M Levi,et al.  Binocular summation in vernier acuity. , 1991, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

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

[9]  Richard S. J. Frackowiak,et al.  Area V5 of the human brain: evidence from a combined study using positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. , 1993, Cerebral cortex.

[10]  Geraint Rees,et al.  Knowing with Which Eye We See: Utrocular Discrimination and Eye-Specific Signals in Human Visual Cortex , 2010, PloS one.

[11]  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.

[12]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  A direct demonstration of functional specialization in human visual cortex , 1991, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[13]  F M de Monasterio,et al.  Arrangement of ocular dominance columns in human visual cortex. , 1990, Archives of ophthalmology.

[14]  D. Bradley,et al.  Structure and function of visual area MT. , 2005, Annual review of neuroscience.

[15]  Charles Wheatstone,et al.  Contributions to the Physiology of Vision. , 1837 .

[16]  Interaction of receptive field responses and shift-effect in cat retinal and geniculate neurons , 1978, Experimental Brain Research.

[17]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Recognition alters the spatial pattern of FMRI activation in early retinotopic cortex. , 2010, Journal of neurophysiology.

[18]  Wolf Singer,et al.  Interhemispheric Connections Shape Subjective Experience of Bistable Motion , 2011, Current Biology.

[19]  R. Blake © 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. 5 A Primer on Binocular Rivalry, Including Current Controversies , 2000 .

[20]  Xoana G. Troncoso,et al.  BOLD Activation Varies Parametrically with Corner Angle Throughout Human Retinotopic Cortex , 2007, Perception.

[21]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Pre-stimulus pattern of activity in the fusiform face area predicts face percepts during binocular rivalry , 2011, Neuropsychologia.

[22]  Lars Muckli,et al.  Deciding what to see: The role of intention and attention in the perception of apparent motion , 2008, Vision Research.

[23]  Essa Yacoub,et al.  Mechanisms underlying decoding at 7 T: Ocular dominance columns, broad structures, and macroscopic blood vessels in V1 convey information on the stimulated eye , 2010, NeuroImage.

[24]  J. Raymond Complete interocular transfer of motion adaptation effects on motion coherence thresholds , 1993, Vision Research.

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

[26]  D. Mitchell,et al.  Stereodeficient subjects show substantial differences in interocular transfer of two motion adaptation aftereffects , 1998, Vision Research.

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

[28]  S. Zeki,et al.  Response properties and receptive fields of cells in an anatomically defined region of the superior temporal sulcus in the monkey. , 1971, Brain research.

[29]  J. Weitz,et al.  Central and peripheral factors in the phi phenomenon. , 1951, Journal of experimental psychology.

[30]  P. Tse,et al.  Microsaccade Rate Varies with Subjective Visibility during Motion-Induced Blindness , 2009, PloS one.

[31]  P. Tse,et al.  BOLD Signal in Both Ipsilateral and Contralateral Retinotopic Cortex Modulates with Perceptual Fading , 2010, PloS one.

[32]  Randolph Blake,et al.  On utrocular discrimination , 1979 .

[33]  Po-Jang Hsieh,et al.  “Brain‐reading” of perceived colors reveals a feature mixing mechanism underlying perceptual filling‐in in cortical area V1 , 2010, Human brain mapping.

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

[35]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Binocular Rivalry and Visual Awareness: The Role of Attention , 1999, Perception.

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

[37]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  A theory of cortical responses , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[38]  J. Krüger,et al.  Strong periphery effect in cat retinal ganglion cells. Excitatory responses in ON- and OFF-center neurones to single grid displacements , 1973, Experimental Brain Research.

[39]  C. H. McCool,et al.  2.10 – Cortical Processing of Visual Motion , 2008 .

[40]  Peng Zhang,et al.  Voluntary Attention Modulates Processing of Eye-Specific Visual Information , 2012, Psychological science.

[41]  Á. Pascual-Leone,et al.  Fast Backprojections from the Motion to the Primary Visual Area Necessary for Visual Awareness , 2001, Science.

[42]  R. Blake,et al.  Further developments in binocular summation , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[43]  C. M. D. de Weert,et al.  On Interocular Transfer of Motion Aftereffects , 1993, Perception.

[44]  V. Ramachandran,et al.  Visual inertia in apparent motion , 1987, Vision Research.

[45]  W. C. Shipley,et al.  Beta apparent movement under binocular, monocular and interocular stimulation. , 1945, The American journal of psychology.

[46]  Frank Tong,et al.  Cognitive neuroscience: Primary visual cortex and visual awareness , 2003, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

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

[48]  Gideon Paul Caplovitz,et al.  Bistable illusory rebound motion: Event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging of perceptual states and switches , 2006, NeuroImage.

[49]  J. Mcilwain RECEPTIVE FIELDS OF OPTIC TRACT AXONS AND LATERAL GENICULATE CELLS: PERIPHERAL EXTENT AND BARBITURATE SENSITIVITY. , 1964, Journal of neurophysiology.