Interocular transfer of the motion after-effect is not reduced by binocular rivalry

O’Shea, Robert P; Crassini, Boris

doi:10.1016/0042-6989(81)90177-2

Cited by 78 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2 C and D). This finding replicates the earlier results putatively implying that suppression occurs after the site of adaptation (3)(4)(5). However, when the adapting contrast assumed a lower, nonasymptotic value, suppression significantly weakened both the MAE and the TEAE.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Only when the adapting contrast is situated on the rising portion of the contrast͞response function would suppression have a measurable effect on aftereffect strength. Studies showing no effect of suppression on aftereffect strength have used a single level of adapting contrast that, indexed to threshold, was relatively high (3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9). We ques-tioned whether those results (and the accompanying conclusions) were unwittingly confounded by the use of adapting contrasts producing saturated aftereffects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This line of reasoning has been applied to the study of binocular rivalry and visual crowding, which are two extensively studied visual phenomena that are used to ''erase'' visual stimuli from awareness (2). The results have shown that full-strength pattern and motion aftereffects (MAEs) can be induced even when the high-contrast inducing stimuli were absent from awareness for a substantial portion of the adaptation period during binocular rivalry (3)(4)(5)(6)(7) and crowding (8,9). Because adaptation producing these aftereffects includes neural events that presumably occur within cortical areas ranging from the primary visual cortex (V1) (10)(11)(12) to the middle-temporal visual area (12,13), these psychophysical findings have reasonably been interpreted as evidence for the high-level origin of both rivalry (14,15) and crowding (8,14).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Strength of early visual adaptation depends on visual awareness

Blake

Tadin

Sobel

et al. 2006

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

170

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We measured visual-adaptation strength under variations in visual awareness by manipulating phenomenal invisibility of adapting stimuli using binocular rivalry and visual crowding. Results showed that the threshold-elevation aftereffect and the translational motion aftereffect were reduced substantially during binocular rivalry and crowding. Importantly, aftereffect reduction was correlated with the proportion of time that the adapting stimulus was removed from visual awareness. These findings indicate that the neural events that underlie both rivalry and crowding are inaugurated at an early stage of visual processing, because both the threshold-elevation aftereffect and translational motion aftereffect arise, at least in part, from adaptation at the earliest stages of cortical processing. Also, our findings make it necessary to reinterpret previous studies whose results were construed as psychophysical evidence against the direct role of neurons in the primary visual cortex in visual awareness. binocular rivalry ͉ crowding ͉ vision V isual adaptation has been dubbed the psychologist's microelectrode (1) because the resulting visual aftereffects presumably reveal response properties of neural mechanisms that are activated by adapting stimuli. Also, measuring visual adaptation under visual conditions that render the adapting stimulus invisible allows one to draw inferences about the neural concomitants of the conditions that produce stimulus invisibility. Specifically, a result showing a full-strength aftereffect that is generated by an invisible stimulus implies normal, unperturbed neural activation at the site of adaptation. This outcome implies that the neural correlates of the visual phenomenon that are used to render the adapting stimulus invisible lie beyond the neural mechanisms that are responsible for the aftereffect. This line of reasoning has been applied to the study of binocular rivalry and visual crowding, which are two extensively studied visual phenomena that are used to ''erase'' visual stimuli from awareness (2). The results have shown that full-strength pattern and motion aftereffects (MAEs) can be induced even when the high-contrast inducing stimuli were absent from awareness for a substantial portion of the adaptation period during binocular rivalry (3-7) and crowding (8, 9). Because adaptation producing these aftereffects includes neural events that presumably occur within cortical areas ranging from the primary visual cortex (V1) (10-12) to the middle-temporal visual area (12, 13), these psychophysical findings have reasonably been interpreted as evidence for the high-level origin of both rivalry (14, 15) and crowding (8,14). Also, these same results were regarded by some workers as key psychophysical evidence against the direct involvement of V1 neurons in conscious visual awareness (16)(17)(18)(19). Measurement of full-strength aftereffects under conditions of rivalry and crowding shows a clear dissociation between the abolished perceptual awareness of the adapting stimulus and unperturbe...

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Strength of early visual adaptation depends on visual awareness

Blake

Tadin

Sobel

et al. 2006

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

170

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of studies have shown that rivalry does not interfere with the production of aftereffects (Blake & Fox, 1974;Lehmkuhle & Fox, 1975;Wade & Wenderoth, 1978) or with IOT (Blake & Overton, 1979;O'Shea & Crassini, 1981). These studies exploit the fact that, up to a ceiling, all aftereffects increase in magnitude as a function of the length of the adapting period.…”

Section: Pathway For Binocular Rivalrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Stereopsis and binocular rivalry.

Wolfe¹

1986

Psychological Review

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research was supported by Grants EY05087 and RR07047 from the National Institutes of Health and Sloan Foundation support for the Center for Cognitive Science.I thank Jeanny Liu for help in conducting the experiments and Mary Kelsey for drawing figures. I thank John Maunsell, Julian Hochberg, Richard Held, Kathleen O'Connell, and two anonymous reviewers for useful comments on earlier drafts of this article, and Randolph Blake and Walter Makous for useful discussions on the general topic.

show abstract

“…pattern information continues to be registered even when the eye receiving that information is suppressed during rivalry (Blake & Fox, 1974;O'Shea & Crassini, 1981;Wade & Wenderoth, 1978). The continued effectiveness of a suppressed target places the site of rivalry suppression beyond at least the neural locus at which spatialfrequency and orientation information is initially registered.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dichoptic reading: The role of meaning in binocular rivalry

Blake

1988

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

These experiments sought to determine whether meaning influences the predominance of one eye during binocular rivalry. In Experiment I, observers tried to read meaningful text under conditions in which different text streams were viewed by the two eyes, a situation mimicking the classic dichotic listening paradigm. Dichoptic reading proved impossible even when the text streams were printed in different fonts or when one eye received a 5-sec advantage. Under nonrivalry conditions, the observers were able to read text presented at twice the rate usedfor dichoptic testing, indicating that cognitive overload does not limit performance under conditions of rivalry. In Experiment 2, observers were required to detect repeated presentations of a probe target within a string of characters presented to one eye. Although this task was easily performed under monocular viewing conditions, it proved difficult when the two eyes received dissimilar character strings. This was true regardless of whether the probed eye viewed nonsense strings, real words, or meaningful text. In a condition designed to encourage semantic processing of one eye's view, the observers were required to detect animal names as well as to detect the probe target. Performance remained inferior to that measured under monocular conditions. Even the observer's own name proved insufficient to influence the predominance of one eye under conditions of dichoptic stimulation. When two text strings were physically superimposed and viewed monocularly, essentially no probes were detected, indicating that the failure to see some probes during rivalry reflects a limitation unique to dichoptic viewing. These results contradict theories attributing binocular rivalry to an attentional process that operates on monocular inputs that have received refined analysis. This conclusion may be limited to rival stimuli whose meaning is defined linguistically, not structurally.The idea that binocular rivalry involves some sort of attentional mechanism is deeply rooted within the literature on visual perception. In his classic treatise on physiological optics, Helmholtz (1866/1962) dealt at some length with the parallels between rivalry and attention, and James (1890), in his chapter on attention, used rivalry to illustrate the hallmarks of what he called "sensorial attention." This putative link between rivalry and attention also appears in contemporary writings. In one of the most recent reviews of the literature on binocular rivalry, Walker (1978) maintained this tradition by arguing that "rivalry reflects central selective processes ... over and above the analysis of sensory information" (p. 387).Several lines of evidence can be marshaled in support of the view that rivalry involves central attentional mechanisms. For one thing, rivalry occurs even when the provoking stimuli are afterimages (e.g., Breese, 1899), a condition that effectively eliminates such peripheral factors as eye movements, retinal adaptation, or changes in accommodation as causes of rivalry. It is also known that

show abstract

Interocular transfer of the motion after-effect is not reduced by binocular rivalry

Cited by 78 publications

References 11 publications

Strength of early visual adaptation depends on visual awareness

Strength of early visual adaptation depends on visual awareness

Stereopsis and binocular rivalry.

Dichoptic reading: The role of meaning in binocular rivalry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About