Binocular rivalry requires visual attention

An interocular conflict arises when different images are presented to each eye at the same spatial location. The visual system resolves this conflict through binocular rivalry: observers consciously perceive spontaneous alternations between the two images. Visual attention is generally important for resolving competition between neural representations. However, given the seemingly spontaneous and automatic nature of binocular rivalry, the role of attention in resolving interocular competition remains unclear. Here we test whether visual attention is necessary to?produce rivalry. Using an EEG frequency-tagging method to track cortical representations of the conflicting images, we show that when attention was diverted away, rivalry stopped. The EEG data further suggested that the neural representations of the dichoptic images combined without attention. Thus, attention is necessary for dichoptic images to be engaged in sustained rivalry and may be generally required for resolving conflicting, potentially ambiguous input and giving a single interpretation access to consciousness.     

Bistable percepts in the brain: FMRI contrasts monocular pattern rivalry and binocular rivalry

The neural correlates of binocular rivalry have been actively debated in recent years, and are of considerable interest as they may shed light on mechanisms of conscious awareness. In a related phenomenon, monocular rivalry, a composite image is shown to both eyes. The subject experiences perceptual alternations in which the two stimulus components alternate in clarity or salience. The experience is similar to perceptual alternations in binocular rivalry, although the reduction in visibility of the suppressed component is greater for binocular rivalry, especially at higher stimulus contrasts. We used fMRI at 3T to image activity in visual cortex while subjects perceived either monocular or binocular rivalry, or a matched non-rivalrous control condition. The stimulus patterns were left/right oblique gratings with the luminance contrast set at 9%, 18% or 36%. Compared to a blank screen, both binocular and monocular rivalry showed a U-shaped function of activation as a function of stimulus contrast, i.e. higher activity for most areas at 9% and 36%. The sites of cortical activation for monocular rivalry included occipital pole (V1, V2, V3), ventral temporal, and superior parietal cortex. The additional areas for binocular rivalry included lateral occipital regions, as well as inferior parietal cortex close to the temporoparietal junction (TPJ). In particular, higher-tier areas MT+ and V3A were more active for binocular than monocular rivalry for all contrasts. In comparison, activation in V2 and V3 was reduced for binocular compared to monocular rivalry at the higher contrasts that evoked stronger binocular perceptual suppression, indicating that the effects of suppression are not limited to interocular suppression in V1.     

Touch Interacts with Vision during Binocular Rivalry with a Tight Orientation Tuning

Multisensory integration is a common feature of the mammalian brain that allows it to deal more efficiently with the ambiguity of sensory input by combining complementary signals from several sensory sources. Growing evidence suggests that multisensory interactions can occur as early as primary sensory cortices. Here we present incompatible visual signals (orthogonal gratings) to each eye to create visual competition between monocular inputs in primary visual cortex where binocular combination would normally take place. The incompatibility prevents binocular fusion and triggers an ambiguous perceptual response in which the two images are perceived one at a time in an irregular alternation. One key function of multisensory integration is to minimize perceptual ambiguity by exploiting cross-sensory congruence. We show that a haptic signal matching one of the visual alternatives helps disambiguate visual perception during binocular rivalry by both prolonging the dominance period of the congruent visual stimulus and by shortening its suppression period. Importantly, this interaction is strictly tuned for orientation, with a mismatch as small as 7.5° between visual and haptic orientations sufficient to annul the interaction. These results indicate important conclusions: first, that vision and touch interact at early levels of visual processing where interocular conflicts are first detected and orientation tunings are narrow, and second, that haptic input can influence visual signals outside of visual awareness, bringing a stimulus made invisible by binocular rivalry suppression back to awareness sooner than would occur without congruent haptic input.     

Single units and conscious vision.

Figures that can be seen in more than one way are invaluable tools for the study of the neural basis of visual awareness, because such stimuli permit the dissociation of the neural responses that underlie what we perceive at any given time from those forming the sensory representation of a visual pattern. To study the former type of responses, monkeys were subjected to binocular rivalry, and the response of neurons in a number of different visual areas was studied while the animals reported their alternating percepts by pulling levers. Perception-related modulations of neural activity were found to occur to different extents in different cortical visual areas. The cells that were affected by suppression were almost exclusively binocular, and their proportion was found to increase in the higher processing stages of the visual system. The strongest correlations between neural activity and perception were observed in the visual areas of the temporal lobe. A strikingly large number of neurons in the early visual areas remained active during the perceptual suppression of the stimulus, a finding suggesting that conscious visual perception might be mediated by only a subset of the cells exhibiting stimulus selective responses. These physiological findings, together with a number of recent psychophysical studies, offer a new explanation of the phenomenon of binocular rivalry. Indeed, rivalry has long been considered to be closely linked with binocular fusion and stereopsis, and the sequences of dominance and suppression have been viewed as the result of competition between the two monocular channels. The physiological data presented here are incompatible with this interpretation. Rather than reflecting interocular competition, the rivalry is most probably between the two different central neural representations generated by the dichoptically presented stimuli. The mechanisms of rivalry are probably the same as, or very similar to, those underlying multistable perception in general, and further physiological studies might reveal much about the neural mechanisms of our perceptual organization.     

Image-Based Grouping during Binocular Rivalry Is Dictated by Eye-Of-Origin

Prolonged viewing of dichoptically presented images with different content results in perceptual alternations known as binocular rivalry. This phenomenon is thought to be the result of competition at a local level, where local rivalry zones interact to give rise to a single, global dominant percept. Certain perceived combinations that result from this local competition are known to last longer than others, which is referred to as grouping during binocular rivalry. In recent years, the phenomenon has been suggested to be the result of competition at both eye- and image-based processing levels, although the exact contribution from each level remains elusive. Here we use a paradigm designed specifically to quantify the contribution of eye- and image-based processing to grouping during rivalry. In this paradigm we used sine-wave gratings as well as upright and inverted faces, with and without binocular disparity-based occlusion. These stimuli and conditions were used because they are known to result in processing at different stages throughout the visual processing hierarchy. Specifically, more complex images were included in order to maximize the potential contribution of image-based grouping. In spite of this, our results show that increasing image complexity did not lead to an increase in the contribution of image-based processing to grouping during rivalry. In fact, the results show that grouping was primarily affected by the eye-of-origin of the image parts, irrespective of stimulus type. We suggest that image content affects grouping during binocular rivalry at low-level processing stages, where it is intertwined with eye-of-origin information.     

The neural transfer characteristic (neurontropy) for binocular stochastic stimulation

Our binocular fusion/rivalry model for the processing of interocular correlations was extended to partial correlations. The results support the concepts of fusion/rivalry inhibition, of catabolism, of adaptation and of the power transforms of correlational information. They also indicate that the neural transfer characteristic for interocular correlation, (also called neurontropy), is highly nonlinear with respect to the degree of mathematical correlation.Address Fill Oct. 1, 1976: Prof. Dr. B. Julesz     

How to Create and Use Binocular Rivalry

Each of our eyes normally sees a slightly different image of the world around us. The brain can combine these two images into a single coherent representation. However, when the eyes are presented with images that are sufficiently different from each other, an interesting thing happens: Rather than fusing the two images into a combined conscious percept, what transpires is a pattern of perceptual alternations where one image dominates awareness while the other is suppressed; dominance alternates between the two images, typically every few seconds. This perceptual phenomenon is known as binocular rivalry. Binocular rivalry is considered useful for studying perceptual selection and awareness in both human and animal models, because unchanging visual input to each eye leads to alternations in visual awareness and perception. To create a binocular rivalry stimulus, all that is necessary is to present each eye with a different image at the same perceived location. There are several ways of doing this, but newcomers to the field are often unsure which method would best suit their specific needs. The purpose of this article is to describe a number of inexpensive and straightforward ways to create and use binocular rivalry. We detail methods that do not require expensive specialized equipment and describe each method''s advantages and disadvantages. The methods described include the use of red-blue goggles, mirror stereoscopes and prism goggles.     

Visible binocular beats from invisible monocular stimuli during binocular rivalry

When two qualitatively different stimuli are presented at the same time, one to each eye, the stimuli can either integrate or compete with each other. When they compete, one of the two stimuli is alternately suppressed, a phenomenon called binocular rivalry [1,2]. When they integrate, observers see some form of the combined stimuli. Many different properties (for example, shape or color) of the two stimuli can induce binocular rivalry. Not all differences result in rivalry, however. Visual 'beats', for example, are the result of integration of high-frequency flicker between the two eyes [3,4], and are thus a binocular fusion phenomenon. It remains in dispute whether binocular fusion and rivalry can co-exist with one another [5-7]. Here, we report that rivalry and beats, two apparently opposing phenomena, can be perceived at the same time within the same spatial location. We hypothesized that the interocular difference in visual attributes that are predominantly processed in the Parvocellular pathway will lead to rivalry, and differences in visual attributes that are predominantly processed in the Magnocellular pathway tend to integrate. Further predictions based on this hypothesis were tested and confirmed.     

On the role of attention in binocular rivalry: electrophysiological evidence

During binocular rivalry visual consciousness fluctuates between two dissimilar monocular images. We investigated the role of attention in this phenomenon by comparing event-related potentials (ERPs) when binocular-rivalry stimuli were attended with when they were unattended. Stimuli were dichoptic, orthogonal gratings that yielded binocular rivalry and dioptic, identically oriented gratings that yielded binocular fusion. Events were all possible orthogonal changes in orientation of one or both gratings. We had two attention conditions: In the attend-to-grating condition, participants had to report changes in perceived orientation, focussing their attention on the gratings. In the attend-to-fixation condition participants had to report changes in a central fixation target, taking attention away from the gratings. We found, surprisingly, that attending to rival gratings yielded a smaller ERP component (the N1, from 160-210 ms) than attending to the fixation target. To explain this paradoxical effect of attention, we propose that rivalry occurs in the attend-to-fixation condition (we found an ERP signature of rivalry in the form of a sustained negativity from 210-300 ms) but that the mechanism processing the stimulus changes is more adapted in the attend-to-grating condition than in the attend-to-fixation condition. This is consistent with the theory that adaptation gives rise to changes of visual consciousness during binocular rivalry.     

Subcortical discrimination of unperceived objects during binocular rivalry

Rapid identification of behaviorally relevant objects is important for survival. In humans, the neural computations for visually discriminating complex objects involve inferior temporal cortex (IT). However, less detailed but faster form processing may also occur in a phylogenetically older subcortical visual system that terminates in the amygdala. We used binocular rivalry to present stimuli without conscious awareness, thereby eliminating the IT object representation and isolating subcortical visual input to the amygdala. Functional magnetic resonance imaging revealed significant brain activation in the left amygdala but not in object-selective IT in response to unperceived fearful faces compared to unperceived nonface objects. These findings indicate that, for certain behaviorally relevant stimuli, a high-level cortical representation in IT is not required for object discrimination in the amygdala.     

Adults' awareness of faces follows newborns' looking preferences

From the first days of life, humans preferentially orient towards upright faces, likely reflecting innate subcortical mechanisms. Here, we show that binocular rivalry can reveal face detection mechanisms in adults that are surprisingly similar to inborn face detection mechanism. We used continuous flash suppression (CFS), a variant of binocular rivalry, to render stimuli invisible at the beginning of each trial and measured the time upright and inverted stimuli needed to overcome such interocular suppression. Critically, specific stimulus properties previously shown to modulate looking preferences in neonates similarly modulated adults' awareness of faces presented during CFS. First, the advantage of upright faces in overcoming CFS was strongly modulated by contrast polarity and direction of illumination. Second, schematic patterns consisting of three dark blobs were suppressed for shorter durations when the arrangement of these blobs respected the face-like configuration of the eyes and the mouth, and this effect was modulated by contrast polarity. No such effects were obtained in a binocular control experiment not involving CFS, suggesting a crucial role for face-sensitive mechanisms operating outside of conscious awareness. These findings indicate that visual awareness of faces in adults is governed by perceptual mechanisms that are sensitive to similar stimulus properties as those modulating newborns' face preferences.     

General validity of Levelt's propositions reveals common computational mechanisms for visual rivalry

The mechanisms underlying conscious visual perception are often studied with either binocular rivalry or perceptual rivalry stimuli. Despite existing research into both types of rivalry, it remains unclear to what extent their underlying mechanisms involve common computational rules. Computational models of binocular rivalry mechanisms are generally tested against Levelt's four propositions, describing the psychophysical relation between stimulus strength and alternation dynamics in binocular rivalry. Here we use a bistable rotating structure-from-motion sphere, a generally studied form of perceptual rivalry, to demonstrate that Levelt's propositions also apply to the alternation dynamics of perceptual rivalry. Importantly, these findings suggest that bistability in structure-from-motion results from active cross-inhibition between neural populations with computational principles similar to those present in binocular rivalry. Thus, although the neural input to the computational mechanism of rivalry may stem from different cortical neurons and different cognitive levels the computational principles just prior to the production of visual awareness appear to be common to the two types of rivalry.     

Independent binocular rivalry processes for motion and form

During binocular rivalry, conflicting monocular images undergo alternating suppression. This study explores rivalry suppression by probing visual sensitivity during rivalry with various probe stimuli. When two faces engage in rivalry, sensitivity to face probes is reduced 4-fold during suppression. Rivaling global motions also rivaled very deeply when probed with a global motion. However, in a surprising finding, sensitivity to face probes is completely unimpaired during global motion rivalry, and motion sensitivity is unimpaired during face rivalry. This suggests that rivalry suppression is localized to the neurons representing the image conflict, which means that probes of a different kind suffer no suppression. Sensibly, this would leave visual processes not involved in rivalry free to function normally.     

Fusion and rivalry are dependent on the perceptual meaning of visual stimuli

We view the world with two eyes and yet are typically only aware of a single, coherent image. Arguably the simplest explanation for this is that the visual system unites the two monocular stimuli into a common stream that eventually leads to a single coherent sensation. However, this notion is inconsistent with the well-known phenomenon of rivalry; when physically different stimuli project to the same retinal location, the ensuing perception alternates between the two monocular views in space and time. Although fundamental for understanding the principles of binocular vision and visual awareness, the mechanisms under-lying binocular rivalry remain controversial. Specifically, there is uncertainty about what determines whether monocular images undergo fusion or rivalry. By taking advantage of the perceptual phenomenon of color contrast, we show that physically identical monocular stimuli tend to rival-not fuse-when they signify different objects at the same location in visual space. Conversely, when physically different monocular stimuli are likely to represent the same object at the same location in space, fusion is more likely to result. The data suggest that what competes for visual awareness in the two eyes is not the physical similarity between images but the similarity in their perceptual/empirical meaning.     

Long-term speeding in perceptual switches mediated by attention-dependent plasticity in cortical visual processing

Binocular rivalry has been extensively studied to understand the mechanisms that control switches in visual awareness and much has been revealed about the contributions of stimulus and cognitive factors. Because visual processes are fundamentally adaptive, however, it is also important to understand how experience alters the dynamics of perceptual switches. When observers viewed binocular rivalry repeatedly over many days, the rate of perceptual switches increased as much as 3-fold. This long-term rivalry speeding exhibited a pattern of image-feature specificity that ruled out primary contributions from strategic and nonsensory factors and implicated neural plasticity occurring in both low- and high-level visual processes in the ventral stream. Furthermore, the speeding occurred only when the rivaling patterns were voluntarily attended, suggesting that the underlying neural plasticity selectively engages when stimuli are behaviorally relevant. Long-term rivalry speeding may thus reflect broader mechanisms that facilitate quick assessments of signals that contain multiple behaviorally relevant interpretations.     

Onset rivalry: brief presentation isolates an early independent phase of perceptual competition

When the left and right eyes are simultaneously presented with different images, observers typically report exclusive awareness of only one image. This phenomenon is termed binocular rivalry, reflecting the fact that the dominant image alternates every few seconds in a cycle of perceptual competition that continues indefinitely. Despite the apparent continuity in perceptual switching, we now demonstrate that the initial "onset" period is fundamentally different to all subsequent rivalry epochs. Using brief intermittent presentations, rivalry dominance shows strong biases such that the same target is perceived with each successive stimulus onset. These biases remain consistent within any given location, but vary across the visual field in a distribution that is stable over multiple weeks but highly idiosyncratic across observers. If the presentation exceeds approximately 1sec at any location, however, the very different and much more balanced alternations of sustained binocular rivalry become apparent. These powerful onset biases are observed with brief intermittent presentations at a single location or with continual smooth motion of the targets. Periods of adaptation to one of the rivaling targets induced local switches in dominance to the non-adapted target. However, these effects were generally limited to the spatial site of adaptation and had less influence over each subsequent cycle of the target. We conclude that onset rivalry is independent of sustained rivalry and cannot be explained by local regions of monocular dominance or memory of past perceptual history, but rather reflects low-level, spatially localized factors that are stable over periods of weeks. These findings suggest that brief presentation paradigms are inappropriate for their current use in studies of the mechanisms underlying sustained rivalry. However, brief presentations are ideal for investigating early stages of perceptual competition.     

Perceptual grouping of biological motion promotes binocular rivalry

Investigation of perceptual rivalry between conflicting stimuli presented one to each eye can further understanding of the neural underpinnings of conscious visual perception. During rivalry, visual awareness fluctuates between perceptions of the two stimuli. Here, we demonstrate that high-level perceptual grouping can promote rivalry between stimulus pairs that would otherwise be perceived as nonrivalrous. Perceptual grouping was generated with point-light walker stimuli that simulate human motion, visible only as lights placed on the joints. Although such walking figures are unrecognizable when stationary, recognition judgments as complex as gender and identity can accurately be made from animated displays, demonstrating the efficiency with which our visual system can group dynamic local signals into a globally coherent walking figure. We find that point-light walker stimuli presented one to each eye and in different colors and configurations results in strong rivalry. However, rivalry is minimal when the two walkers are split between the eyes or both presented to one eye. This pattern of results suggests that processing animated walker figures promotes rivalry between signals from the two eyes rather than between higher-level representations of the walkers. This leads us to hypothesize that awareness during binocular rivalry involves the integrated activity of high-level perceptual mechanisms in conjunction with lower-level ocular suppression modulated via cortical feedback.     

The effect of interocular phase difference on perceived contrast

Binocular vision is traditionally treated as two processes: the fusion of similar images, and the interocular suppression of dissimilar images (e.g. binocular rivalry). Recent work has demonstrated that interocular suppression is phase-insensitive, whereas binocular summation occurs only when stimuli are in phase. But how do these processes affect our perception of binocular contrast? We measured perceived contrast using a matching paradigm for a wide range of interocular phase offsets (0–180°) and matching contrasts (2–32%). Our results revealed a complex interaction between contrast and interocular phase. At low contrasts, perceived contrast reduced monotonically with increasing phase offset, by up to a factor of 1.6. At higher contrasts the pattern was non-monotonic: perceived contrast was veridical for in-phase and antiphase conditions, and monocular presentation, but increased a little at intermediate phase angles. These findings challenge a recent model in which contrast perception is phase-invariant. The results were predicted by a binocular contrast gain control model. The model involves monocular gain controls with interocular suppression from positive and negative phase channels, followed by summation across eyes and then across space. Importantly, this model—applied to conditions with vertical disparity—has only a single (zero) disparity channel and embodies both fusion and suppression processes within a single framework.     

Dichoptic plaids may rival, but their motions can integrate

When the eyes view incompatible images, binocular rivalry usually results: image constituents in corresponding parts of the monocular visual fields are not perceived simultaneously. We asked naive undergraduates to view dichoptic, dioptic, and monoptic plaids. The dichoptic images evoked strong binocular rivalry when contrast was high, especially if the component gratings were set in motion. Nevertheless, the subjects' visual systems integrated the motion information across the two eyes, producing a unitary motion percept that did not reflect the image in either eye alone. By manipulating the relative spatial scale of the gratings, we affected how well the motion cohered: the results were remarkably similar between dichoptic and traditional dioptic plaids. By manipulating the relative speed of the gratings, we systematically affected the perceived direction of motion of the plaids; these results were also remarkably similar for dichoptic and dioptic plaids. Thus, the motion analysis of dichoptic and dioptic plaids is proceeding according to very similar rules, even though the dichoptic images are incompatible and evoke binocular rivalry.     

Suppressed patterns alter vision during binocular rivalry

Binocular rivalry occurs when incongruent patterns are presented to corresponding regions of the retinas, leading to fluctuations of awareness between the patterns . One attribute of a stimulus may rival whereas another may combine between the eyes , but it is typically assumed that the dominant features are perceived veridically. Here, we show this is not necessarily the case and that a suppressed visual feature can alter dominant perception. The cortical representations of oriented gratings can interact even when one of them is perceptually suppressed, such that the perceived orientation of the dominant grating is systematically biased depending on the orientation of the suppressed grating. A suppressed inducing pattern has the same qualitative effect as a visible one, but suppression reduces effective contrast by a factor of around six. A simple neural model quantifies and helps explain these illusions. These results demonstrate that binocular rivalry suppression operates in a graded fashion across multiple sites in the visual hierarchy rather than truncating processing at a single site and that suppressed visual information can alter dominant vision in real-time.