Stimulus Fractionation by Interocular Suppression

Can human observers distinguish physical removal of a visible stimulus from phenomenal suppression of that stimulus during binocular rivalry? As so often happens, simple questions produce complex answers, and that is the case in the study reported here. Using continuous flash suppression to produce binocular rivalry, we were able to identify stimulus conditions where most – but not all – people utterly fail to distinguish physical from phenomenal stimulus removal, although we can be certain that those two equivalent perceptual states are accompanied by distinct neural events. More interestingly, we find subtle variants of the task where distinguishing the two states is trivially easy, even for people who utterly fail under the original conditions. We found that stimulus features are differentially vulnerable to suppression. Observers are able to be aware of existence/removal of some stimulus attributes (flicker) but not others (orientation), implying that interocular suppression breaks down the unitary awareness of integrated features belonging to a visual object. These findings raise questions about the unitary nature of awareness and, also, place qualifications on the utility of binocular rivalry as a tool for studying the neural concomitants of conscious visual awareness.

[1]  B. Baars Global workspace theory of consciousness: toward a cognitive neuroscience of human experience. , 2005, Progress in brain research.

[2]  Dominique Lamy,et al.  Integration Without Awareness , 2011, Psychological science.

[3]  L Weiskrantz,et al.  The Ferrier Lecture, 1989 - Outlooks for blindsight: explicit methodologies for implicit processes , 1990, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. B. Biological Sciences.

[4]  Sheng He,et al.  Visible binocular beats from invisible monocular stimuli during binocular rivalry , 2000, Current Biology.

[5]  Colin Blakemore,et al.  Integration of motion information during binocular rivalry , 2002, Vision Research.

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

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

[8]  A. Yonelinas,et al.  Separating sensitivity from response bias: implications of comparisons of yes-no and forced-choice tests for models and measures of recognition memory. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[9]  J. Nachmias,et al.  Discrimination of simple and complex gratings , 1975, Vision Research.

[10]  H. Wilson,et al.  Fourier and Non-Fourier Pattern Discrimination Compared , 1996, Vision Research.

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

[12]  J. Robson Spatial and Temporal Contrast-Sensitivity Functions of the Visual System , 1966 .

[13]  R. Blake,et al.  The Interaction between Binocular Rivalry and Negative Afterimages , 2005, Current Biology.

[14]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .

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

[16]  Raymond van Ee,et al.  Stochastic variations in sensory awareness are driven by noisy neuronal adaptation: evidence from serial correlations in perceptual bistability. , 2009, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

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

[18]  F A Wichmann,et al.  Ning for Helpful Comments and Suggestions. This Paper Benefited Con- Siderably from Conscientious Peer Review, and We Thank Our Reviewers the Psychometric Function: I. Fitting, Sampling, and Goodness of Fit , 2001 .

[19]  Timothy J. Andrews,et al.  Form and motion have independent access to consciousness , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[20]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Dichoptic temporal frequency differences do not lead to binocular rivalry , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

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

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

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

[24]  Raymond van Ee,et al.  Distributions of alternation rates in various forms of bistable perception. , 2005, Journal of vision.

[25]  G. Rees,et al.  Fine-scale activity patterns in high-level visual areas encode the category of invisible objects. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[26]  J. Robson,et al.  Discrimination at threshold: Labelled detectors in human vision , 1981, Vision Research.

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

[28]  N. Logothetis,et al.  Activity changes in early visual cortex reflect monkeys' percepts during binocular rivalry , 1996, Nature.

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

[30]  Karen Holopigian,et al.  Clinical suppression and binocular rivalry suppression: The effects of stimulus strength on the depth of suppression , 1989, Vision Research.

[31]  A. Kertesz,et al.  Microsaccadic eye movements and binocular rivalry , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[32]  B. L. Zuber,et al.  Suppression of the Pupillary Light Reflex in Binocular Rivalry and Saccadic Suppression , 1965, Nature.

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

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

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

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

[37]  R. Sekuler,et al.  The independence of channels in human vision selective for direction of movement. , 1975, The Journal of physiology.

[38]  N. Wade The effect of orientation in binocular contour rivalry of real images and afterimages , 1974 .

[39]  G. Rees,et al.  The Neural Bases of Multistable Perception , 2022 .