Literature DB >> 31519817

Humans Perceive Binocular Rivalry and Fusion in a Tristable Dynamic State.

Guillaume Riesen1, Anthony M Norcia2, Justin L Gardner2.   

Abstract

Human vision combines inputs from the two eyes into one percept. Small differences "fuse" together, whereas larger differences are seen "rivalrously" from one eye at a time. These outcomes are typically treated as mutually exclusive processes, with paradigms targeting one or the other and fusion being unreported in most rivalry studies. Is fusion truly a default, stable state that only breaks into rivalry for non-fusible stimuli? Or are monocular and fused percepts three sub-states of one dynamical system? To determine whether fusion and rivalry are separate processes, we measured human perception of Gabor patches with a range of interocular orientation disparities. Observers (10 female, 5 male) reported rivalrous, fused, and uncertain percepts over time. We found a dynamic "tristable" zone spanning from ∼25-35° of orientation disparity where fused, left-eye-, or right-eye-dominant percepts could all occur. The temporal characteristics of fusion and non-fusion periods during tristability matched other bistable processes. We tested statistical models with fusion as a higher-level bistable process alternating with rivalry against our findings. None of these fit our data, but a simple bistable model extended to have three states reproduced many of our observations. We conclude that rivalry and fusion are multistable substates capable of direct competition, rather than separate bistable processes.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT When inputs to the two eyes differ, they can either fuse together or engage in binocular rivalry, where each eye's view is seen exclusively in turn. Visual stimuli have often been tailored to produce either fusion or rivalry, implicitly treating them as separate mutually-exclusive perceptual processes. We have found that some similar-but-different stimuli can result in both outcomes over time. Comparing various simple models with our results suggests that rivalry and fusion are not independent processes, but compete within a single multistable system. This conceptual shift is a step toward unifying fusion and rivalry, and understanding how they both contribute to the visual system's production of a unified interpretation of the conflicting images cast on the retina by real-world scenes.
Copyright © 2019 the authors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  binocular rivalry; binocular vision; fusion; human; modeling; psychophysics

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31519817      PMCID: PMC6807276          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0713-19.2019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosci        ISSN: 0270-6474            Impact factor:   6.167


  58 in total

1.  Distributions of alternation rates in various forms of bistable perception.

Authors:  Jan W Brascamp; Raymond van Ee; Wiebe R Pestman; Albert V van den Berg
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2005-04-04       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  Disruption of implicit perceptual memory by intervening neutral stimuli.

Authors:  Ryota Kanai; Tomas H J Knapen; Raymond van Ee; Frans A J Verstraten
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2007-08-13       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  On the coexistence of stereopsis and binocular rivalry.

Authors:  R Blake; Y D Yang; H R Wilson
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Local binocular fusion is involved in global binocular rivalry.

Authors:  Shinji Takase; Shinji Yukumatsu; Kazuo Bingushi
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2008-06-27       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Orientation disparity, deformation, and stereoscopic slant perception.

Authors:  B Gillam; B Rogers
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 1.490

Review 6.  An astable multivibrator model of binocular rivalry.

Authors:  S R Lehky
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 1.490

7.  Visual motion, binocular correspondence and binocular rivalry.

Authors:  R Blake; L Zimba; D Williams
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 2.086

8.  Interobserver test-retest reliability of the Randot preschool stereoacuity test.

Authors:  S L Fawcett; E E Birch
Journal:  J AAPOS       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 1.220

Review 9.  Binocular vision.

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

10.  Common mechanisms for 2D tilt and 3D slant after-effects.

Authors:  Wendy J Adams; Pascal Mamassian
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 1.886

View more
  5 in total

1.  Spatially distributed computation in cortical circuits.

Authors:  Sergei Gepshtein; Ambarish S Pawar; Sunwoo Kwon; Sergey Savel'ev; Thomas D Albright
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 14.957

2.  Mechanisms underlying simultaneous brightness contrast: Early and innate.

Authors:  Pawan Sinha; Sarah Crucilla; Tapan Gandhi; Dylan Rose; Amy Singh; Suma Ganesh; Umang Mathur; Peter Bex
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2020-05-25       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  Adaptation to transients disrupts spatial coherence in binocular rivalry.

Authors:  Marnix Naber; Sjoerd Stuit; Yentl De Kloe; Stefan Van der Stigchel; Chris L E Paffen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  The influence of contact lenses with different optical designs on the binocular vision and visual behavior of young adults.

Authors:  Shyan-Tarng Chen; Hsiao-Ching Tung; Yan-Ting Chen; Chuen-Lin Tien; Chih-Wei Yeh; Jheng-Sin Lian; Ching-Ying Cheng
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-04-21       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Binocular fusion enhances the efficiency of spot-the-difference gameplay.

Authors:  Kavitha Venkataramanan; Swanandi Gawde; Amithavikram R Hathibelagal; Shrikant R Bharadwaj
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-07-20       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.