Battle of the Mondrians: Investigating the Role of Unpredictability in Continuous Flash Suppression

In continuous flash suppression (CFS), a dynamic sequence of Mondrian patterns presented to one eye suppresses a static target in the other eye for several seconds at a time. Its effectiveness has been linked to low-level properties such as spatial frequency and orientation, but the role of higher order influences remains unstudied. Here, using a tracking paradigm, we asked if the spatial and temporal predictability of the Mondrian sequence affects CFS dynamics. Predictable temporal sequences were regularly updated every 100 ms or modulated sinusoidally in pixel luminance at 2 Hz. Unpredictable temporal sequences were irregularly updated or had stochastic pixel luminance changes across time. To vary spatial predictability, sequences were either updated with different Mondrian patterns or had a fixed spatial pattern. We found a modest effect of spatial uncertainty when the target modulation was low (0.125 Hz) but not temporal uncertainty, which had no significant effects regardless of target modulation. Similar results were obtained when we pitted the standard Mondrian sequence against sequences with a fixed spatial pattern and temporally low-pass filtered sequences in a binocular rivalry paradigm. Thus, not only was the effect of information predictability was modest and spatial, but it was also dependent on the presence of higher temporal frequencies. Together, the results demonstrate the significance of low-level properties in affecting CFS dynamics and the possible involvement of pattern structure masking in CFS.

[1]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  Grasping with the eyes: The role of elongation in visual recognition of manipulable objects , 2014, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[2]  D. Alais,et al.  The temporal frequency tuning of continuous flash suppression reveals peak suppression at very low frequencies , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[3]  Philipp Sterzer,et al.  Neural processing of visual information under interocular suppression: a critical review , 2014, Front. Psychol..

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

[5]  Nir Levy,et al.  Reading and doing arithmetic nonconsciously , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  Eric Hiris,et al.  The Informational Basis of Motion Coherence , 1995 .

[7]  Sheng He,et al.  Processing of Invisible Stimuli: Advantage of Upright Faces and Recognizable Words in Overcoming Interocular Suppression , 2007, Psychological science.

[8]  Karl J. Friston.  Am I Self-Conscious? (Or Does Self-Organization Entail Self-Consciousness?) , 2018, Front. Psychol..

[9]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

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

[11]  R. Blake,et al.  On the use of continuous flash suppression for the study of visual processing outside of awareness , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[12]  J. Enns,et al.  What’s new in visual masking? , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[13]  P Vuilleumier,et al.  Neural response to emotional faces with and without awareness: event-related fMRI in a parietal patient with visual extinction and spatial neglect , 2002, Neuropsychologia.

[14]  David Alais,et al.  A bias for looming stimuli to predominate in binocular rivalry , 2007, Vision Research.

[15]  U. Neisser,et al.  Selective looking: Attending to visually specified events , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[17]  Chris L. E. Paffen,et al.  Breaking continuous flash suppression: competing for consciousness on the pre-semantic battlefield , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[18]  R. Blake,et al.  Slow and steady, not fast and furious: Slow temporal modulation strengthens continuous flash suppression , 2018, Consciousness and Cognition.

[19]  David Alais,et al.  Strength of continuous flash suppression is optimal when target and masker modulation rates are matched. , 2018, Journal of vision.

[20]  J. Wagemans,et al.  Moving Stimuli Are Less Effectively Masked Using Traditional Continuous Flash Suppression (CFS) Compared to a Moving Mondrian Mask (MMM): A Test Case for Feature-Selective Suppression and Retinotopic Adaptation , 2014, PloS one.

[21]  S L Macknik,et al.  The role of spatiotemporal edges in visibility and visual masking. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[23]  R Blake,et al.  Visual form created solely from temporal structure. , 1999, Science.

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

[25]  David Alais,et al.  Increasing depth of binocular rivalry suppression along two visual pathways , 2003, Vision Research.

[26]  Miguel A. Vadillo,et al.  Underpowered samples, false negatives, and unconscious learning , 2015, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[27]  B. Sidis.  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SUGGESTION. , 1898, Science.

[28]  R. Blake,et al.  Fearful expressions gain preferential access to awareness during continuous flash suppression. , 2007, Emotion.

[29]  D. Alais,et al.  Orientation-tuned suppression in binocular rivalry reveals general and specific components of rivalry suppression. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[30]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Deconstructing continuous flash suppression. , 2012, Journal of vision.

[31]  P. Sterzer,et al.  Investigating Masked Priming Along the “Vision-for-Perception” and “Vision-for-Action” Dimensions of Unconscious Processing , 2018, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[32]  Hiroki Yamamoto,et al.  Activity in early visual areas predicts interindividual differences in binocular rivalry dynamics , 2013, Journal of neurophysiology.

[33]  Yusuke Murayama,et al.  Attention But Not Awareness Modulates the BOLD Signal in the Human V1 During Binocular Suppression , 2011, Science.

[34]  P. McGraw,et al.  What determines the depth of interocular suppression during continuous flash suppression , 2013 .

[35]  D. Heeger,et al.  Continuous Flash Suppression Modulates Cortical Activity in Early Visual Cortex , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[36]  D. Alais.  Binocular rivalry: competition and inhibition in visual perception. , 2012, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[37]  Philippe Lefèvre,et al.  Smooth pursuit performance during target blanking does not influence the triggering of predictive saccades. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[38]  J. Mattingley,et al.  Parietal neglect and visual awareness , 1998, Nature Neuroscience.

[39]  Min-Suk Kang.  Size matters: a study of binocular rivalry dynamics. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[40]  Jerome D. Tietz,et al.  Reaction time for horizontal versus vertical line-length discrimination , 1992 .

[41]  B. Breitmeyer,et al.  Recent models and findings in visual backward masking: A comparison, review, and update , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[42]  Egor Ananyev,et al.  Separate requirements for detection and perceptual stability of motion in interocular suppression , 2017, Scientific Reports.

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

[44]  F. Fang,et al.  Cortical responses to invisible objects in the human dorsal and ventral pathways , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[45]  R. Blake,et al.  Individual differences in continuous flash suppression: Potency and linkages to binocular rivalry dynamics , 2019, Vision Research.

[46]  C. E. SHANNON,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[47]  Franco Lepore,et al.  Spatial Frequency Tuning during the Conscious and Non-Conscious Perception of Emotional Facial Expressions – An Intracranial ERP Study , 2012, Front. Psychology.

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

[49]  Jan Drewes,et al.  The edge of awareness: Mask spatial density, but not color, determines optimal temporal frequency for continuous flash suppression. , 2018, Journal of vision.

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

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

[52]  Bruno G. Breitmeyer,et al.  Psychophysical “blinding” methods reveal a functional hierarchy of unconscious visual processing , 2015, Consciousness and Cognition.

[53]  D. Melcher,et al.  Time for Awareness: The Influence of Temporal Properties of the Mask on Continuous Flash Suppression Effectiveness , 2016, PloS one.

[54]  Philip H. Ramsey.  Nonparametric Statistical Methods , 1974, Technometrics.

[55]  Kevin C. Dieter,et al.  When can attention influence binocular rivalry? , 2015, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[56]  D. Alais,et al.  Evidence for two interacting temporal channels in human visual processing , 2006, Vision Research.

[57]  V. Franz,et al.  Learning to detect but not to grasp suppressed visual stimuli , 2013, Neuropsychologia.

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