Literature DB >> 12206529

How context influences predominance during binocular rivalry.

Kenith V Sobel1, Randolph Blake.   

Abstract

Variations in the predominance of an object engaged in binocular rivalry may arise from variations in the durations of dominance phases, suppression phases, or both. Earlier work has shown that the predominance of a binocular rival target is enhanced if that target fits well-via common color, orientation, or motion-with its surrounding objects. In the present experiments, the global context outside of the region of rivalry was changed during rivalry, to learn whether contextual information alters the ability to detect changes in a suppressed target itself. Results indicate that context will maintain the dominance of a rival target, but will not encourage a suppressed target to escape from suppression. Evidently, the fate of the suppressed stimulus is determined by neural events distinct from those responsible for global organization during dominance. To reconcile diverse findings concerning rivalry, it may be important to distinguish between processes responsible for selection of one eye's input for dominance from processes responsible for the implementation and maintenance of suppression.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12206529      PMCID: PMC3507470          DOI: 10.1068/p3279

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perception        ISSN: 0301-0066            Impact factor:   1.490


  27 in total

1.  The depth and selectivity of suppression in binocular rivalry.

Authors:  V A Nguyen; A W Freeman; P Wenderoth
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2001-02

Review 2.  On binocular alternation.

Authors:  D Alais; R P O'Shea; C Mesana-Alais; I G Wilson
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.490

3.  Controlling binocular rivalry.

Authors:  A W Freeman; V A Nguyen
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Effect of binocular rivalry suppression on the motion aftereffect.

Authors:  S W Lehmkuhle; R Fox
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1975-07       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  The sensitivity of binocular rivalry to changes in the nondominant stimulus.

Authors:  P Walker; D J Powell
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1979       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Binocular rivalry suppression: insensitive to spatial frequency and orientation change.

Authors:  R Blake; R Fox
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1974-08       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Adaptation to invisible gratings and the site of binocular rivalry suppression.

Authors:  R Blake; R Fox
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1974-05-31       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Detection of motion during binocular rivalry suppression.

Authors:  R Fox; R Check
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1968-11

9.  The influence of colour and contour rivalry on the magnitude of the tilt after-effect.

Authors:  N J Wade; P Wenderoth
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1978       Impact factor: 1.886

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

Authors:  R P O'Shea; B Crassini
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1981       Impact factor: 1.886

View more
  17 in total

1.  BINOCULAR RIVALRY AND NEURAL DYNAMICS.

Authors:  Randolph Blake; Sang-Hun Lee; David Heeger
Journal:  Psichologija (Vilniaus Univ)       Date:  2008-06-01

Review 2.  United we sense, divided we fail: context-driven perception of ambiguous visual stimuli.

Authors:  P C Klink; R J A van Wezel; R van Ee
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-04-05       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  Dynamical characteristics common to neuronal competition models.

Authors:  Asya Shpiro; Rodica Curtu; John Rinzel; Nava Rubin
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2006-10-25       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  The monocular-boundary-contour mechanism in binocular surface representation and suppression.

Authors:  Eric A van Bogaert; Teng Leng Ooi; Zijiang J He
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.490

5.  The magnitude and dynamics of interocular suppression affected by monocular boundary contour and conflicting local features.

Authors:  Yong R Su; Zijiang J He; Teng Leng Ooi
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2010-07-17       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 6.  Suppressive mechanisms in visual motion processing: From perception to intelligence.

Authors:  Duje Tadin
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Auditory and tactile signals combine to influence vision during binocular rivalry.

Authors:  Claudia Lunghi; Maria Concetta Morrone; David Alais
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2014-01-15       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  When can attention influence binocular rivalry?

Authors:  Kevin C Dieter; Michael D Melnick; Duje Tadin
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Surface boundary contour strengthens image dominance in binocular competition.

Authors:  Jingping P Xu; Zijiang J He; Teng Leng Ooi
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2009-11-11       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  The effects of categorical and linguistic adaptation on binocular rivalry initial dominance.

Authors:  Vassilis Pelekanos; Daphne Roumani; Konstantinos Moutoussis
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2012-01-11       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.