Duality in Binocular Rivalry: Distinct Sensitivity of Percept Sequence and Percept Duration to Imbalance between Monocular Stimuli

Background Visual perception is usually stable and accurate. However, when the two eyes are simultaneously presented with conflicting stimuli, perception falls into a sequence of spontaneous alternations, switching between one stimulus and the other every few seconds. Known as binocular rivalry, this visual illusion decouples subjective experience from physical stimulation and provides a unique opportunity to study the neural correlates of consciousness. The temporal properties of this alternating perception have been intensively investigated for decades, yet the relationship between two fundamental properties - the sequence of percepts and the duration of each percept - remains largely unexplored. Methodology/Principal Findings Here we examine the relationship between the percept sequence and the percept duration by quantifying their sensitivity to the strength imbalance between two monocular stimuli. We found that the percept sequence is far more susceptible to the stimulus imbalance than does the percept duration. The percept sequence always begins with the stronger stimulus, even when the stimulus imbalance is too weak to cause a significant bias in the percept duration. Therefore, introducing a small stimulus imbalance affects the percept sequence, whereas increasing the imbalance affects the percept duration, but not vice versa. To investigate why the percept sequence is so vulnerable to the stimulus imbalance, we further measured the interval between the stimulus onset and the first percept, during which subjects experienced the fusion of two monocular stimuli. We found that this interval is dramatically shortened with increased stimulus imbalance. Conclusions/Significance Our study shows that in binocular rivalry, the strength imblanace between monocular stimuli has a much greater impact on the percept sequence than on the percept duration, and increasing this imbalance can accelerate the process responsible for the percept sequence.

[1]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Exogenous attention and endogenous attention influence initial dominance in binocular rivalry , 2006, Vision Research.

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

[3]  R. Blake A neural theory of binocular rivalry. , 1989, Psychological review.

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

[5]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Onset Rivalry: Brief Presentation Isolates an Early Independent Phase of Perceptual Competition , 2007, PloS one.

[6]  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.

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

[8]  Sheng He,et al.  Local Factors Determine the Stabilization of Monocular Ambiguous and Binocular Rivalry Stimuli , 2004, Current Biology.

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

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

[11]  T. Mueller A physiological model of binocular rivalry , 1990, Visual Neuroscience.

[12]  Katsumi Aoki,et al.  Recent development of flow visualization , 2004, J. Vis..

[13]  W. Ehrenstein,et al.  Eye preference within the context of binocular functions , 2005, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

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

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

[16]  J M Wolfe,et al.  Influence of Spatial Frequency, Luminance, and Duration on Binocular Rivalry and Abnormal Fusion of Briefly Presented Dichoptic Stimuli , 1983, Perception.

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

[18]  R. Blake,et al.  The precedence of binocular fusion over binocular rivalry , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[19]  R. Blake,et al.  Neural bases of binocular rivalry , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[20]  Y Yang,et al.  Discriminating binocular fusion from false fusion. , 1991, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

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

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

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

[24]  Hugh R Wilson,et al.  Computational evidence for a rivalry hierarchy in vision , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  Alan W Freeman,et al.  Multistage model for binocular rivalry. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

[26]  C. Tyler,et al.  Failure of rivalry at low contrast: Evidence of a suprathreshold binocular summation process , 1992, Vision Research.

[27]  Cynthia S. Sahm,et al.  Past trials influence perception of ambiguous motion quartets through pattern completion. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[29]  Timothy J Andrews,et al.  Fusion and Rivalry Are Dependent on the Perceptual Meaning of Visual Stimuli , 2004, Current Biology.

[30]  C. Koch,et al.  The Neural Correlates of Consciousness , 2008, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

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

[32]  W. Levelt The alternation process in binocular rivalry , 1966 .

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

[34]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Predictive coding explains binocular rivalry: An epistemological review , 2008, Cognition.

[35]  Geraint Rees,et al.  Neural correlates of consciousness in humans , 2002, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[36]  Derek H. Arnold,et al.  Binocular switch suppression: A new method for persistently rendering the visible ‘invisible’ , 2008, Vision Research.

[37]  C. Koch,et al.  A framework for consciousness , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

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

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

[40]  N. Qian Binocular Disparity and the Perception of Depth , 1997, Neuron.