Literature DB >> 20053080

Orientation-tuned suppression in binocular rivalry reveals general and specific components of rivalry suppression.

Sjoerd M Stuit1, John Cass, Chris L E Paffen, David Alais.   

Abstract

During binocular rivalry (BR), conflicting monocular images are alternately suppressed from awareness. During suppression of an image, contrast sensitivity for probes is reduced by approximately 0.3-0.5 log units relative to when the image is in perceptual dominance. Previous studies on rivalry suppression have led to controversies concerning the nature and extent of suppression during BR. We tested for feature-specific suppression using orthogonal rivaling gratings and measuring contrast sensitivity to small grating probes at a range of orientations in a 2AFC orientation discrimination task. Results indicate that suppression is not uniform across orientations: suppression was much greater for orientations close to that of the suppressed grating. The higher suppression was specific to a narrow range around the suppressed rival grating, with a tuning similar to V1 orientation bandwidths. A similar experiment tested for spatial frequency tuning and found that suppression was stronger for frequencies close to that of the suppressed grating. Interestingly, no tuned suppression was observed when a flicker-and-swap paradigm was used, suggesting that tuned suppression occurs only for lower-level, interocular rivalry. Together, the results suggest there are two components to rivalry suppression: a general feature-invariant component and an additional component specifically tuned to the rivaling features.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20053080     DOI: 10.1167/9.11.17

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  16 in total

1.  Deconstructing continuous flash suppression.

Authors:  Eunice Yang; Randolph Blake
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  Attention model of binocular rivalry.

Authors:  Hsin-Hung Li; James Rankin; John Rinzel; Marisa Carrasco; David J Heeger
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-07-10       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  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

4.  Probing the mechanisms of probe-mediated binocular rivalry.

Authors:  Brian A Metzger; Diane M Beck
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 5.  Binocular vision.

Authors:  Randolph Blake; Hugh Wilson
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2010-10-15       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Individual differences in the temporal dynamics of binocular rivalry and stimulus rivalry.

Authors:  Vaama Patel; Sjoerd Stuit; Randolph Blake
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-04

7.  Advantage of hole stimulus in rivalry competition.

Authors:  Qianli Meng; Ding Cui; Ke Zhou; Lin Chen; Yuanye Ma
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Temporal analysis of image-rivalry suppression.

Authors:  Rishi Bhardwaj; Robert P O'Shea
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-25       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Binocular rivalry produced by temporal frequency differences.

Authors:  David Alais; Amanda Parker
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2012-07-31       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  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.

Authors:  Pieter Moors; Johan Wagemans; Lee de-Wit
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-30       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.