Perceived Depth in the ‘Sieve Effect’ and Exclusive Binocular Rivalry

Perception ◽  
10.1068/p5749 ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 36 (7) ◽  
pp. 990-1002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazumichi Matsumiya ◽  
Ian P Howard ◽  
Hirohiko Kaneko
Keyword(s):  
Binocular Rivalry ◽  
The Other ◽  
Stimulus Combination ◽  
Depth Probe ◽  
Sieve Effect

An impression of a surface seen through holes is created when one fuses dichoptic pairs of discs, with one member of each pair black and the other member white. This is referred to as the ‘sieve effect’. The stimulus contains no positional disparities. Howard (1995, Perception24 67–74) noted qualitatively that the sieve effect occurs when the rivalrous regions are within the range of sizes, contrasts, and relative sizes where exclusive rivalry occurs, rather than binocular lustre, stimulus combination, or dominant rivalry. This suggests that perceived depth in the sieve effect should be at a maximum when exclusive rivalry is most prominent. We used a disparity depth probe to measure the magnitude of perceived depth in the sieve effect as a function of the sizes, contrasts, and relative sizes of the rivalrous regions. We also measured the rate of exclusive rivalry of the same stimuli under the same conditions. Perceived depth and the rate of exclusive rivalry were affected in the same way by each of the three variables. Furthermore, perceived depth and the rate of exclusive rivalry were affected in the same way by changes in vergence angle, although the configuration of the stimulus surface was held constant. These findings confirm the hypothesis that the sieve effect is correlated with the incidence of exclusive rivalry.

scholarly journals Color-Binding Errors During Rivalrous Suppression of Form

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (9) ◽  
pp. 1084-1091 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sang Wook Hong ◽  
Steven K. Shevell
Keyword(s):  
Binocular Rivalry ◽  
The Other ◽  
Physical Stimulus ◽  
Physical Stimulation ◽  
Eye Color ◽  
Neural Representations ◽  
Perceptual Alternation ◽  
Different Color ◽  
Binding Errors

How does a physical stimulus determine a conscious percept? Binocular rivalry provides useful insights into this question because constant physical stimulation during rivalry causes different visual experiences. For example, presentation of vertical stripes to one eye and horizontal stripes to the other eye results in a percept that alternates between horizontal and vertical stripes. Presentation of a different color to each eye (color rivalry) produces alternating percepts of the two colors or, in some cases, a color mixture. The experiments reported here reveal a novel and instructive resolution of rivalry for stimuli that differ in both form and color: perceptual alternation between the rivalrous forms (e.g., horizontal or vertical stripes), with both eyes' colors seen simultaneously in separate parts of the currently perceived form. Thus, the colors presented to the two eyes (a) maintain their distinct neural representations despite resolution of form rivalry and (b) can bind separately to distinct parts of the perceived form.

Pleasingness vs Interestingness of Visual Stimuli with Controlled Complexity: Their Relationship to Looking Time as a Function of Exposure Time

1975 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerda Smets
Keyword(s):  
Exposure Time ◽  
Binocular Rivalry ◽  
Stimulus Pair ◽  
Significant Interaction ◽  
Visual Stimuli ◽  
The Other ◽  
Stimulus Complexity

Ss take more time to perceive interesting/displeasing stimuli than uninteresting/pleasing ones. This is consistent with the results of former experiments. However we used a different operationalization of looking time, based on binocular rivalry. Each of six stimulus pairs was presented in a stereoscope. One member of each pair was interesting but displeasing in comparison to the other member. Stimulus complexity was under control. Due to binocular rivalry Ss perceived only one pattern a time. 20 Ss were asked to indicate which pattern they actually saw by pushing two buttons. For each stimulus pair was registered how long each button was pushed during each of six successive minutes. Unlike other operationalizations this one is less dependent on S's determination of what stimulus will be looked at or for how long. It has the advantage that it is bound up more exclusively with relations of similarity and dissimilarity between stimulus elements. It allows manipulation of exposure time in a systematic and continuous way. There is no significant interaction between looking and exposure time.

What is Suppressed during Binocular Rivalry?

Perception ◽  
1980 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randolph Blake ◽  
David H Westendorf ◽  
Randall Overton
Keyword(s):  
Binocular Rivalry ◽  
The Other ◽  
Dominant Eye ◽  
Prior Adaptation

To answer the question ‘What is suppressed during binocular rivalry?’ a series of three experiments was performed. In the first experiment observers viewed binocular rivalry between orthogonally oriented patterns. When the dominant and suppressed patterns were interchanged between the eyes observers continued seeing with the dominant eye, indicating that an eye, not a pattern, is suppressed during rivalry. In a second experiment it was found that a suppressed eye was able to contribute to stereopsis. A third experiment demonstrated that the predominance of an eye could be influenced by prior adaptation of the other eye, indicating that binocular mechanisms participate in the rivalry process.

Providing a human user artificial ability to control their eyes independently with various eye movement patterns

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (0) ◽  
pp. 171-172
Author(s):  
Fumio Mizuno ◽  
Tomoaki Hayasaka ◽  
Takami Yamaguchi
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Visual Perception ◽  
Control Systems ◽  
Eye Movement ◽  
Binocular Rivalry ◽  
Human Visual System ◽  
Visual Stimulation ◽  
The Other ◽  
Flexible Adaptation ◽  
Left And Right

Humans have the capability to flexibly adapt to visual stimulation, such as spatial inversion in which a person wears glasses that display images upside down for long periods of time (Ewert, 1930; Snyder and Pronko, 1952; Stratton, 1887). To investigate feasibility of extension of vision and the flexible adaptation of the human visual system with binocular rivalry, we developed a system that provides a human user with the artificial oculomotor ability to control their eyes independently for arbitrary directions, and we named the system Virtual Chameleon having to do with Chameleons (Mizuno et al., 2010, 2011). The successful users of the system were able to actively control visual axes by manipulating 3D sensors held by their both hands, to watch independent fields of view presented to the left and right eyes, and to look around as chameleons do. Although it was thought that those independent fields of view provided to the user were formed by eye movements control corresponding to pursuit movements on human, the system did not have control systems to perform saccadic movements and compensatory movements as numerous animals including human do. Fluctuations in dominance and suppression with binocular rivalry are irregular, but it is possible to bias these fluctuations by boosting the strength of one rival image over the other (Blake and Logothetis, 2002). It was assumed that visual stimuli induced by various eye movements affect predominance. Therefore, in this research, we focused on influenced of patterns of eye movements on visual perception with binocular rivalry, and implemented functions to produce saccadic movements in Virtual Chameleon.

scholarly journals Age-dependency in binocular rivalry is reflected by exclusive percepts, not mixed percepts

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elahe Arani ◽  
Raymond van Ee ◽  
Richard van Wezel
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Binocular Rivalry ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
The Other ◽  
Perceptual Decision Making ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Determining Factors ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Neural Factors ◽  
Inhibitory Interactions

AbstractSome aspects of decision-making are known to decline with normal aging. One of the known perceptual decision-making processes which is vastly studied is binocular rivalry. It is well-established that the older the person, the slower the perceptual dynamics. However, the underlying neurobiological cause is unknown. So, to understand how age affects visual decision-making, we investigated age-related changes in perception during binocular rivalry. In binocular rivalry, the image presented to one eye competes for perceptual dominance with the image presented to the other eye. Perception during binocular rivalry consists of alternations between exclusive percepts. However, frequently, mixed percepts with combinations of the two monocular images occur. The mixed percepts reflect a transition from the percept of one eye to the other but frequently the transitions do not complete the full cycle and the previous exclusive percept becomes dominant again. The transitional idiosyncrasy of mixed percepts has not been studied systematically in different age groups. Previously, we have found evidence for adaptation and noise, and not inhibition, as underlying neural factors that are related to age-dependent perceptual decisions. Based on those conclusions, we predict that mixed percepts/inhibitory interactions should not change with aging. Therefore, in an old and a young age group, we studied binocular rivalry dynamics considering both exclusive and mixed percepts by using two paradigms: percept-choice and percept-switch. We found a decrease in perceptual alternation Probability for older adults, although the rate of mixed percepts did not differ significantly compared to younger adults. Interestingly, the mixed percepts play a very similar transitional idiosyncrasy in our different age groups. Further analyses suggest that differences in synaptic depression, gain modulation at the input level, and/or slower execution of motor commands are not the determining factors to explain these findings. We then argue that changes in perceptual decisions at an older age are the result of changes in neural adaptation and noise.

Interocular Grouping of Visual Attributes during Binocular Rivalry

Perception ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 26 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 304-304
Author(s):  
T V Papathomas ◽  
I Kovács ◽  
A Feher
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Frequency ◽  
Binocular Rivalry ◽  
The Other ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Visual Attributes ◽  
Competition Hypothesis ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

The need to revise the eye competition hypothesis of binocular rivalry, and to include the role of stimulus competition has been demonstrated recently by Kovács, Papathomas, Feher, and Yang (1996 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA93 15508 – 15511) and Logothetis, Leopold, and Sheinberg [1996 Nature (London)380 621 – 624]. Kovács et al showed that observers can obtain one-colour percepts when presented with chromatically rivalrous stimuli, even when there are targets of two different colours in each eye. In this study we investigate whether other attributes, in addition to colour, can drive interocular grouping, and how they interact. We extended the ‘patchwork’ rivalrous stimuli (Kovács et al) to study how colour, orientation, spatial frequency, and motion can group interocularly, and how they interact in grouping. Gabor patches are used, because they allow conjunctions of attributes to be formed systematically. To study the ability of an attribute (or a combination of attributes) to group interocularly, we induce rivalry by virtue of interocular differences in that attribute (or combination), and keep the other attributes fixed in both eyes' images. The main advantage of these stimuli is that they enable us to decorrelate the effects of eye competition and percept competition in binocular rivalry. The data show that colour is the most powerful attribute in grouping, and that combinations are stronger than single attributes. Overall, the results indicate that similarity in low-level attributes can drive interocular grouping, and that binocular rivalry follows complex rules of perceptual organisation that cannot be accounted for by eye suppression alone.

Binocular Rivalry in Half-Occluded Regions of Coloured Random-Dot Stereograms

Perception ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 25 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 154-154
Author(s):  
M Suzuki
Keyword(s):  
Binocular Rivalry ◽  
Ecological Validity ◽  
The Other ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Uncrossed Disparity ◽  
Random Dot Stereograms ◽  
Normal Perception

In normal perception, binocular rivalry does not arise in half-occluded regions. However, when coloured random-dot stereograms (RDSs) were observed, binocular rivalry arose in half-occluded regions. In this study, binocular rivalry in half-occluded regions was studied with coloured RDSs. Coloured RDSs consisted of a central square-shaped region, a background, half-occluded regions, and a probe. The central square-shaped region was coloured white, and was presented in either crossed or uncrossed disparity. The background was coloured yellow. The half-occluded regions were coloured either white, yellow, or blue. The probe was coloured red, and was presented in either of the half-occluded regions. Subjects judged the disappearance of the probe and stereopsis. When the half-occluded regions were coloured the same as the front plane, the probe and stereopsis both disappeared. On the other hand, when the half-occluded regions were coloured the same as the back plane or differently from both planes only the probe disappeared while stereopsis did not disappear. Also, disappearance of the probe decreased more when the half-occluded regions were coloured the same as the back plane, than when the half-occluded regions were coloured differently from both planes. These results suggest that half-occluded regions escape binocular rivalry for several reasons, including ecological validity in 3-D representation, and that half-occluded regions are suppressed interocularly when a static stereogram is observed statically.

Binocular rivalry suppression disrupts recovery from motion adaptation

1992 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidi Wiesenfelder ◽  
Randolph Blake
Keyword(s):  
Binocular Rivalry ◽  
Cortical Neurons ◽  
Storage Period ◽  
Test Period ◽  
The Other ◽  
Test Target ◽  
High Contrast ◽  
Motion Adaptation ◽  
Rivalry Condition ◽  
After Effect

AbstractThe motion after-effect (MAE) lasts longer when the test period does not immediately follow adaptation, a phenomenon called storage. Does storage of the MAE occur if the test target is present but rendered phenomenally invisible owing to the presence of a rival target presented to the other eye during the storage period? Our experiment addressed this question. Following adaptation to a drifting grating, an intervening period preceded testing with a stationary grating. During this period, the adapted eye either viewed the test target immediately or was occluded, and the unadapted eye either viewed a high-contrast rival target or was occluded. Thus four conditions were employed. The duration of the residual MAE was found to be longer for the rivalry condition (grating and rival target viewed) than for the normal MAE condition (grating viewed), and comparable to that in the stored MAE condition (both eyes occluded). Thus, the MAE is stored when the test target is rendered invisible due to binocular rivalry, indicating that a suppressed target is ineffective at promoting decay of the MAE. So while suppression does not prevent information about the adapting grating from reaching the site of generation of the MAE (Lehmkuhle & Fox, 1975), it can prevent information about the test target from reaching the site of the stored MAE. Current models attribute the MAE to reduced responsiveness of direction-selective cortical neurons (Sutherland, 1961; Barlow & Hill, 1963). Thus, storage should reflect a differential return of these adapted cells to preadapted response levels, dependent on postadaptation stimulation. From our results we deduce that storage does not occur at all sites at which motion adaptation occurs. Rather, decay of the MAE is dependent on postadaptation stimulation at higher levels of adaptation, and independent at earlier levels.

Binocular Rivalry Disrupts Stereopsis

Perception ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A Harrad ◽  
Suzanne P McKee ◽  
Randolph Blake ◽  
Yuede Yang
Keyword(s):  
Binocular Rivalry ◽  
Control Experiment ◽  
The Other ◽  
Stereo Pair ◽  
Lower Visual Field ◽  
Threshold Elevation ◽  
Line Target ◽  
Variable Duration ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Random Dot Stereogram

Does the shift from binocular rivalry to fusion or stereopsis take time? We measured stereoacuity after rivalry suppression of one half-image of a stereoacuity line target. After the observer signalled that the single stereo half-image had been suppressed, the other half-image was presented for a variable duration. Stereoacuity thresholds were elevated for 150–200 ms. A control experiment demonstrated that the threshold elevation was due to rivalry suppression per se, rather than masking effects associated with the rivalry-inducing target. Monocular Vernier thresholds, measured as the smallest identifiable abrupt shift in the upper line of an aligned Vernier target that had previously been suppressed by rivalry, were elevated for a much longer duration. This result shows that an appropriately matched stereo pair can break rivalry suppression more easily than can monocular changes in position. With the aid of a similar paradigm, we also measured the duration needed to detect a disparate feature in a random-dot stereogram after rivalry suppression of one half-image of the stereogram. Observers could correctly identify the location of the disparate feature (upper or lower visual field) when the other half-image was presented for a duration ranging from 150–650 ms. In the absence of the matching half-image, the first half-image was suppressed by the rival target for a far longer duration (a few seconds). These findings show that although stereopsis and fusion terminate rivalry, both are initially disrupted for a few hundred milliseconds by rivalry suppression.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document