 |
| Volume 4, Number 3, Article 6, Pages 196-202 |
doi:10.1167/4.3.6 |
http://journalofvision.org/4/3/6/ |
ISSN 1534-7362 |
Determinants of visual awareness following interruptions during rivalry
Joel Pearson |
Color, Form & Motion Lab, Visual Perception Unit, School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia |
|
Colin W. G. Clifford |
Color, Form & Motion Lab, Visual Perception Unit, School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia |
|
Abstract
The inability of the human visual system to fuse
dissimilar patterns in corresponding regions of the two eyes results in
stochastic alternation of perceptual dominance between the two patterns:
rivalry. When rivalrous stimuli are presented intermittently their perception is
stabilized (Leopold, Wilke, Maier, & Logothetis, 2002). This stability indicates the operation of
some kind of perceptual memory across interruptions in stimulation. Here we
examined the contents of this perceptual memory to quantify the relative
contributions of different sources of information: eye-of-origin, orientation,
and color. Stimuli were intermittently presented and, during each blank
interruption, we swapped either the color, orientation, or eye of presentation
of the gratings. Comparing the percepts reported before and after each
interruption allowed us to establish what aspects of perception remained stable.
During conventional binocular rivalry, the eye in which the stimulus was
presented remained stable across 74% of interruptions. Stimulus color and
orientation also had weaker significant effects. When eye-of-origin information was eliminated by alternating the patterns rapidly between the two eyes,
stimulus color remained stable across 86% of interruptions. Stimulus orientation
again had a weaker but significant effect. These results demonstrate that the
mechanisms mediating perceptual stability across interruptions in rivalry can
operate at both monocular and binocular levels, much like the mechanisms
operating during continuous viewing of rivalrous stimuli. On the basis of this
similarity, we speculate that perceptual memory across interruptions in rivalry
may involve the same neural representations as visual competition during
rivalry. If this is the case, the use of intermittent stimulation in rivalry
might permit the investigation of aspects of the mechanisms underlying visual
competition that remain hidden during continuous presentation.
 |
|
History
Received September 23, 2003; published March 19, 2004
Citation
Pearson, J. & Clifford, C. G. W. (2004). Determinants of visual awareness following interruptions during rivalry.
Journal of Vision, 4(3):6, 196-202,
http://journalofvision.org/4/3/6/,
doi:10.1167/4.3.6.
Keywords
binocular rivalry, stimulus rivalry, awareness, bistable figures, eye-of-origin, stable perception
for related articles by these authors
for papers that cite this paper |
Our brains are constantly interpreting incomplete and
ambiguous sensory information about the environment (Helmholtz, 1924; Wolfe,
1996; Andrews
& Purves, 1997). The phenomenon of
binocular rivalry (BR) has long been used to investigate the mechanisms by which
conflicting interpretations of sensory data are resolved (Wheatstone, 1838; for
reviews see Blake & Logothetis, 2002;
Alais & Blake, in press). To
generate BR, dissimilar stimuli are presented to the two eyes, such that they
fall on corresponding regions of the two retinas. Although the two physical
stimuli do not change, awareness switches spontaneously between them. Thus, as
with other bistable stimuli, such as the Necker cube (Necker, 1832), multistable apparent motion (Ramachandran
& Anstis, 1985), and the face-vase
(Rubin, 1958), BR serves to decouple changes in
perceptual awareness from changes in stimulation.
Here we investigated perceptual stability across
interruptions in two types of rivalry, classical BR and stimulus rivalry (SR).
In the SR paradigm, the images presented to the two eyes are swapped rapidly,
yet observers experience one image-dominating perception for 3-4 eye-swaps
(Logothetis, Leopold, & Sheinberg 1996). Because the images presented to the
two eyes are continually swapping at a rate much faster than the perceptual one,
it follows that it cannot be monocular information that is rivaling. However, it
has been shown that dominance phase durations for BR and SR follow similar
distributions and exhibit a lack of temporal relation between each phase,
providing strong evidence that the two kinds of rivalry involve similar
mechanisms.
The conditions producing SR seem narrower than those
leading to BR, hence it has been suggested that they arise from different
(albeit similar) mechanisms (Lee & Blake, 1999). Indeed, it has been widely argued that
rivalry can occur at multiple levels of the visual hierarchy (Blake &
Logothetis, 2002;
Alais & Blake, in
press; Lee &
Blake, 1999; Andrews, 2001;
Bonneh, Sagi, & Karni, 2001; Tong, 2001; Freeman
& Nguyen, 2001).
Orbach, Ehrlich, and Heath ( 1963) demonstrated that intermittent presentation
of the Necker cube brings its perceptual alternations almost to a standstill. It
has recently been reported that if rivalrous gratings disappear for a short
period, the stimulus in awareness as they disappear tends to be the one
perceived when they reappear (Leopold, Wilke, Maier, & Logothetis, 2002). Thus, if a blank screen interrupts
rivalry, perceptual alternations can be brought almost to a standstill. It has
been suggested that a form of perceptual “memory” is responsible for
storing the perceptual configuration of the stimulus during the blank
interruption (Leopold et al., 2002; Maier,
Wilke, Logothetis, & Leopold, 2003), and
that this memory seems to be dependent on location in the visual field (Blake,
Sobel, & Gilroy, 2003). However, the
details of this mnemonic mechanism and its relationship to changes in awareness
during rivalry are poorly understood.
Blake, Westendorf, and Overton ( 1980) demonstrated that when dominant and
suppressed patterns are interchanged between the eyes during BR,
observers’ percept switched to that of the previously suppressed pattern.
This suggests that during continuously viewed rivalry it is an entire
eye’s image that is suppressed, and that this suppression remains constant
despite changes in stimulation. If this is the case, it may be the dominant eye
that is “remembered” across a blank gap in BR. Given that the eye
from which an image is sourced is not available to awareness (Ono &
Barbeito, 1985), this would be qualitatively
different to a memory for the previous percept per se.
In Experiment 1, we investigated the contents of
perceptual memory across interruptions in BR. We presented subjects with a pair
of gratings of opposite color and orientation, followed by a blank interruption.
During the interruption, we swapped either the color, orientation, or eye of
presentation of the gratings. Comparing the percepts reported before and after
the interruption allowed us to establish what aspects of perception remained
stable. The data showed that the most stable aspect of perception across the
interruption was the eye-of-origin of the perceived stimulus, although dominant
color and orientation also remained stable at rates significantly higher than
chance. A strong effect of eye-of-origin on perceptual stability across a blank
interval during BR was also reported recently at Vision Sciences (Chen & He,
2003).
In Experiment 2, we eliminated eye-of-origin
information by switching the rivalrous stimuli between the two eyes 4
times/s to produce SR (Logothetis, et al., 1996). Under these conditions of SR, color
was the most stable attribute. The findings from the two experiments suggest
that the mnemonic mechanisms responsible for the stable perception of rivalry
are mediated at multiple levels of the visual hierarchy, contingent on the
stimulus parameters, much like the mechanisms mediating rivalry itself.
Four subjects participated in these experiments (3 male
& 1 female), including the two authors.
Two of the subjects were naive to the purpose of the
study. Stimuli were sinusoidal gratings generated using Matlab software to drive
a VSG 2/5 Graphics Card (Cambridge Research Systems), displayed on a gamma
corrected 21” Sony Trinitron GM 520 monitor (1024 × 768 resolution;
120-Hz refresh rate), and viewed through a mirror stereoscope adjusted for each
observer. Each grating had a spatial frequency of 0.93 cycles/deg, an
orientation of ±45°, and was
presented in a 4.2°-diameter
circular aperture. The contrast of each grating was 30%, with an average
luminance equal to that of the background (6
cd/m−2). A two-tone
fixation spot was use to aid in convergence. The color coordinates for red were
(CIE:
x
= .63;
y
= .34) and green (CIE:
x
= .28;
y
= .62). To equate the stimuli used to generate BR and SR as closely as
possible, both oscillated on/off at 20 Hz (which is a requisite for SR).
Experiment 1 was repeated by two subjects without the 20-Hz flicker, confirming
that pattern of results in the BR condition was not dependent on the presence of
flicker (data not shown).
Participants rested their chins on a padded bar, in a
darkened room. They were exposed to both BR and SR before undertaking any
experiments to familiarize them with their bistable nature. Buttons were
assigned for colors and orientations.
We presented subjects with a pair of gratings of
opposite color and orientation for periods of 1 s, separated by 3-s periods of
absence ( Figure 1). On separate blocks of 80
presentations of the rivalrous gratings, subjects reported either the color (red
or green) or the orientation (left or right) of the dominant percept: a
two-alternative forced-choice
procedure. Figure 1. Schematic of the basic stimulus used to
study perceptual stability across interruptions to binocular rivalry. The four
right-hand panels show the alternative changes made across the blank
interruption. The four conditions were (1) no change to the gratings; (2)
orientation change; (3) color change; and (4) change in color and orientation,
which is equivalent to swapping the images presented between the two eyes.
During each stimulus presentation, subjects reported the dominant percept (on
different blocks this was either in terms of color or orientation). All stimuli
flickered at a frequency of 20 Hz to make them comparable with the eye-swapping
stimuli used in subsequent experiments.
On each presentation, the two colors and two
orientations were randomly assigned to the two eyes while always maintaining
rivalry. During the disappearance it was equally probable that (i) color would
be exchanged between the two eyes but orientation would remain the same; (ii)
orientation would be exchanged between the eyes but color would remain the same;
(iii) both color and orientation would be exchanged between the eyes,
corresponding to a change in eye of origin; and (iv) the stimuli would remain
unchanged. From each subject’s reports we calculated the proportion of
presentations on which the eye of origin, color, and orientation of the dominant
grating remained unchanged from the previous presentation across the blank
interruption.
Consider the following example: a green grating
oriented to the left is presented to the left eye and a red rightwards grating
presented to the right eye. The subject perceives the green leftwards grating.
During the blank interruption, the colors of the gratings are swapped between
the two eyes such that a red leftwards grating is now presented to the left eye
and a green rightwards grating to the right eye. If, when the stimuli return,
the subject perceives the red leftwards grating, then this constitutes a change
in the dominant color with both the dominant eye and dominant orientation
remaining unchanged. If, instead, the subject perceives a green rightwards
grating (the right eye’s image) then the dominant color has remained
unchanged while dominant orientation and dominant eye have both changed; this
latter example would suggest that color information is being
“remembered” across the blank
gap.
There was no systematic difference in the pattern of
data (not shown) between blocks in which
subjects reported perceived color and those in which they reported orientation,
suggesting that feature-based attention (Sternberg & Knoll, 1973) is not a factor in determining the
contents of perceptual memory across interruptions during rivalry. Consequently,
all values reported here were obtained from data pooled across blocks of both
types.
For the BR stimulus in Experiment 1, data from the
“no change” condition demonstrate that perception is stable over the
blank interval on 94% of trials, consistent with the findings of Leopold et al.
( 2002). Swapping the gratings between the two
eyes reduces stability to 44%, close to the chance level of 50% ( Figure 2a). We also calculated the percentage of
trials on which the percept changed under conditions in which only the color or
orientation was swapped between the eyes. In the color change condition,
perception could either follow color or it could follow orientation and
eye-of-origin. We found that, on average, the dominant color remained unchanged
across the blank interval on 34% of color change trials ( Figure 2b, red bars). In the orientation change
condition, perception could either follow orientation or it could follow color
and eye-of-origin. We found that, on average, the dominant orientation remained
unchanged across the blank interval on 20% of orientation change trials ( Figure 2b, striped bars). It is clear from Figure 2b that perceived color and perceived orientation are more likely to remain stable when the attribute in question does not change eye over the blank interval.
Figure 2. a.
Percentage of trials on which the dominant percept is stable across the
interruption with no change (left) in the gratings presented to each eye and
gratings swapped (right) between the eyes. Stability is greatly reduced when the
images are swapped between the two eyes during blank interruption. b. Data from
swapping a single attribute of the gratings: either the color or orientation.
Colored bars on the left show percentage of trials on which perceived color
remained stable when color was swapped between the eyes. Striped portions on the
right show the proportion of trials on which perceived orientation remained
stable when orientation was swapped between the eyes. The black sections show
the percentage of trials on which eye dominance remained stable along with
perception of the remaining attribute. The data show that perceived color and
perceived orientation are more likely to remain stable when the attribute in
question does not change eye over the blank interval. [Trials run by two
subjects without the 20 Hz on-off oscillation showed the same pattern of data
(not shown)]. c. Percentage of trials on which the dominant orientation, color,
and eye-of -origin remained dominant collapsed across all conditions. Error bars
on all graphs show 95% confidence intervals assuming binomial distribution of
responses.
The importance of eye-of-origin information is also
evident when we look across all conditions at the percentage of trials on which
the dominant orientation, color, and eye remain unchanged ( Figure 2c). Here we can see that eye of origin
was the major determinant of the percept after stimulus absence. Averaged across
subjects, the eye in which the perceptually dominant stimulus was presented
remained unchanged from the previous presentation on 74% of trials. This
proportion was significantly greater
( p
< .001) than the chance score of 50%, assuming a binomial distribution
of 800 samples. Stimulus color and orientation also had significant effects,
remaining unchanged on 63%
( p
< .001) and 56%
( p
< .001) of trials, respectively.
The primate visual system often has an eye whose input
dominates over the other (Mapp, Ono, & Barbeito, 2003; Porac & Coren, 1976). This can be reflected in unequal
distributions of dominance during binocular rivalry (Leat & Woodhouse, 1984). To investigate whether this was a factor in
the current study, the four subjects continuously viewed the same binocular
gratings as in Experiment 1 while signaling changes in dominance. The durations
of 200 dominance phases were measured, allowing comparison between the two
eyes.
Subject CC’s right eye was dominant 53% of the
time, whereas the left eye was dominant 47% of the time. For subject TW, the
right eye was dominant 49% of the time and the left eye 51% of the time. These
two subjects did not display any statistically significant eye bias
(p
> .1).
Subject JP’s right eye was dominant for 53% of
the time and the left eye 47% of the time
(p
< .001). Subject SB’s right eye was dominant for 56% of the
time, whereas the left eye was dominant for 44% of the time
(p
<.001). Both these subjects had statistically significant bias to
experience the image presented to the right eye for longer periods of time
during continuous rivalry. However, there were no obvious parallels between the
pattern of data in Experiment 1 and the subjects with significant eye bias. This
suggests that eye bias did not systematically
affect the results of Experiment 1.
The results of Experiment 1 suggest that eye-of-origin
information is the primary component of the mnemonic mechanism(s) responsible
for the stable perception of BR, particularly when color and orientation change
across the gap. Color and orientation also constitute significant components of
this memory. Having established the role of eye-of-origin information in
stabilizing BR, we move to a version of rivalry in which eye information is
eliminated. Perhaps the most compelling evidence indicating rivalry between
stimuli rather than between eyes comes from studies in which two images were
swapped rapidly between the two eyes. Logothetis et al.( 1996) showed that when gratings presented
to the two eyes are exchanged around 3 times/s, phases of dominance extend well
beyond the duration between the exchanges. In fact, the distribution of
dominance phase durations resembles that for normal binocular rivalry. If the
percept is stable during stimulus presentation despite continuous eye-swapping,
then it cannot be the eyes that are rivaling but, presumably, the representation
of particular image attributes. This had been termed stimulus rivalry
(SR).
To establish which stimulus attribute dominated during
SR, we conducted a second experiment while swapping the images presented to each
eye 4 times/s (2-Hz alternations). All other experimental aspects were the same
as those in Experiment 1. Trials were divided into four conditions ( Figure 3), depending on whether or not the
pairing of color and orientation changed over the blank interval and whether or
not the last eye of presentation before a gap in the eye-swapping sequence was
the same as in the following initial configuration. When the pairing of color
and orientation remained unchanged across the blank interval (Conditions 1 &
2), perception was stable across periods of stimulus disappearance ( Figure
4a). Figure 3. Schematic of the stimulus used to
generate stimulus rivalry (eye-swapping). Eyes swapped at 2 Hz or 4 times/s,
whereas the percept did not change with these swaps. Conditions 1-4 represent
the same manipulations as in Experiment 1. Condition 1. Gratings are reversed in
relation to the first 250-ms period of the preceding exposure. Condition 2. The
gratings remain the same as in the first 250 ms of previous exposure. Condition
3. Only the colors are swapped between the two eyes. Condition 4. Only the
orientations are swapped between the two eyes. All details were the same as
those in Experiment 1.
Comparison of the data from the two conditions in Figure 4a shows that changing the initial eye of
presentation of the two gratings had almost no effect on perceptual stability
(no eye change: 94%, eye change: 93%;
t3
= 0.283;
ns).
This confirms that BR was effectively abolished by exchanging the gratings
between the eyes 4 times/s. Consequently, data from the two conditions in which
the pairing of color and orientation changed over the blank interval (Conditions
3 & 4) were pooled to compare the dominance of the two attributes ( Figure 4b). When the pairing of color and orientation
changed, the dominant color remained unchanged on 79% of trails with dominant
orientation unchanged on the remaining 21%, averaged across subjects. Across all
conditions ( Figure 4c), perceived color remained stable
on 86% of trials ( p
< .001) and orientation 57%
( p < .001). The
eye in which each stimulus first appeared had no significant effect. These
results demonstrate that when eye-of-origin information is eliminated, it is
primarily the representation of color that forms the content of the mnemonic
mechanism(s) mediating stable SR, in conjunction with only a small amount of
orientation information. Figure 4. a.
Percentage of stability across interruptions for eye-swapping rivalry (SR). No
change across the gap (left); eyes swapped across the interruption (right). b.
Percentage of trials stable when either the color or orientation was swapped
across the interruption. c. Percentage of trials on which the dominant
orientation, color, and eye-of-origin remained dominant, averaged across all
conditions. All stimuli flickered at a frequency of 20 Hz, to help disguise the
eye swapping. On the rare occasions when the subject reported experiencing the
percept switch with every eye change, trials were aborted and repeated after a
short rest.
The results presented here provide quantitative
evidence that the mnemonic mechanism(s) responsible for the stable perception of
rivalry across a blank gap are mediated at both monocular and binocular levels,
dependent on stimulus parameters. It has previously been shown that rivalry can
occur at multiple levels of the visual hierarchy (Lee and Blake, 1999; Andrews, 2001;
Bonneh et al., 2001; Kovacs,
et al., 1996; Tong, 2001;
Freeman & Nguyen, 2001). Indeed,
it seems that the mnemonic mechanism(s) mediating stable perception across
interruptions in rivalry and the mechanisms mediating continuous rivalry both
respond to the stimulus parameters in much the same way. On this basis, we
propose that the mechanisms mediating rivalry may themselves have a mnemonic
component, and that it is this mnemonic component that is responsible for the
stable perception of rivalry when viewed intermittently.
The stability of rivalrous percepts across periods of
disappearance has been interpreted in terms of mechanisms of memory for recent
perceptual history (Leopold et al., 2002; Maier et
al., 2003). However, while color and
orientation information are available to conscious perception, eye-of-origin
information is not (Ono & Barbeito, 1985). The stability of eye-of-origin information in
our first experiment thus indicates that what is encoded by the mnemonic
mechanism(s) is not always a history of conscious perception per se, but
includes content not accessible to
perception .
Kovacs, Papathomas, Yang, and Feher ( 1996) showed that color is a salient enough
stimulus feature to result in interocular grouping during BR. They presented a
piecemeal pattern of colored patches to each eye so that eye-of-origin and color
were uncorrelated. They found that the proportion of time that the stimulus was
seen as monochromatic (all red or all green) was not significantly different
from a control condition in which green patches were exclusively presented to
one eye and red to the other. This demonstrates that chromatic cues can override
eye suppression to generate uniform percepts.
In the absence of interocular grouping cues of the kind
used by Kovacs et al. ( 1996), we found that
eye-of-origin was more important than color in determining perceptual stability
across interruptions in BR. However, there is a similarity between the findings
of our SR experiment and those of Kovacs et al. ( 1996). The temporal parameters required to
generate SR result in primarily chromatic information “overriding”
ocular suppression, giving rise to periods of dominance covering several eye
swaps (Logothetis et al., 1996). In the
Kovacs experiment, a particular spatial arrangement similarly results in a
chromatically driven percept. Thus, in both continuous rivalry and across
interruptions in rivalry, it appears that the primary role of eye-of-origin
information in determining perception can be usurped by color under certain
stimulus conditions.
The paradigm of intermittent presentation of rivalrous
stimuli has the potential to be informative of not only the mnemonic
characteristics of stabilized rivalry, but also the underlying mechanisms
responsible for the alternations of visual awareness observed during rivalry
itself. However, the underlying dynamics of such mechanisms may not be simple
and straightforward (e.g., Laing & Chow, 2002). For example, it is possible that
multiple mnemonic mechanisms represent different visual attributes, in which
case their time courses may vary independently from one another. Consequently,
caution will be needed when interpreting the implications of the current
findings in regard to the mechanisms operating during continuous rivalry. More
cross-paradigm studies will be needed to generate a comprehensive body of
evidence as to the neural locus and dynamics of the mechanisms determining
visual awareness during rivalry. This should lead to a deeper understanding of
the mechanisms of selection governing entry into phenomenal awareness.
These results demonstrate that the mechanisms mediating
perceptual stability across interruptions in rivalry can operate at both
monocular and binocular levels, much like the mechanisms operating during
continuous viewing of rivalrous stimuli.
We propose that the mechanisms mediating rivalry may
have a mnemonic component to them, and that it is this component of the
mechanism that is responsible for the stable perception of intermittently viewed
rivalrous stimuli. The use of intermittent stimulation in rivalry might then
permit the investigation of aspects of the mechanisms underlying visual
competition that remain hidden during continuous presentation.
This research was supported by a Discovery Project
Grant and Queen Elizabeth II Fellowship awarded to CC by the Australian Research
Council. We are grateful to Alex Holcombe, John Ross, Branka Spehar, and
anonymous referees for helpful comments on earlier versions of this
manuscript.
Commercial relationships: none.
Corresponding author: Joel Pearson.
Email: joelp@psych.usyd.edu.au.
Address: Color, Form & Motion Lab, Visual Perception Unit, School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Alais D, Blake R (Eds.). (in
press). Binocular rivalry and perceptual
ambiguity. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Andrews, T. J., &
Purves, D.(1997). Similarities in normal and binocular rivarlous viewing.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science
USA, 94, 9905-9908. [ PubMed]
[ Article]
Andrews, T. J. (2001).
Binocular rivalry and visual awareness. Trends in Cognitive Science,
5, 407-409. [ PubMed]
Blake, R., &
Logothetis, N. K. (2002). Visual competition.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience,
3, 1-11. [ PubMed]
Blake, R., Sobel, K. V.,
& Gilroy, L. A. (2003). Visual motion retards alternations between
conflicting perceptual interpretations.
Neuron,
39, 869-878. [ PubMed]
Blake, R. Westendorf, D.H., & Overton, R. (1980). What is suppressed during binocular rivalry? Neuron,
9(2), 223-231. [ PubMed]
Bonneh, Y., Sagi, D., &
Karni, A. (2001) A transition between eye and object rivalry determined by
stimulus coherence. Vision Research,
41, 981-989. [ PubMed]
Chen, X., & He, S. (2003). What factors determine the stabilization of a bi-stable stimulus? [Abstract] Journal of Vision, 3(9), 254a. [ Abstract]
Freeman, A. W., & Nguyen, V.
A. (2001). Controlling binocular rivalry.
Vision Research.
41, 2943-2950. [ PubMed]
Helmholtz, H. (1924).
Helmholtz's treatise on physiological
optics. New York: Opthomological Society of America.
Kovacs, I., Papathomas, T. V.,
Yang, M., & Feher, A. (1996). When the brain changes its mind: Interocular
grouping during binocular rivalry. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Science USA,
93, 15508-15511. [ PubMed]
[ Article]
Laing, C. R., & Chow, C. C. (2002). A spiking
neuron model for binocular rivalry.
Journal of
Computational Neuroscience, 12,
39-53. [ PubMed]
Leat, S. J., & Woodhouse, J. M.
(1984). Rivalry with continuous and flashed stimuli as a measure of ocular
dominance across the visual field.
Perception,
13, 351-357. [ PubMed]
Lee, S.-H., & Blake, R. (1999).
Rival ideas about binocular rivalry. Vision
Research, 39, 1447-1454. [ PubMed]
Leopold, D. A., Wilke, M.,
Maier, A., & Logothetis, N. K. (2002). Stable perception of visually
ambiguous patterns. Nature
Neuroscience, 5, 605-609. [ PubMed]
Logothetis, N. K.,
Leopold, D. A., & Sheinberg, D. L. (1996). What is rivalling during
binocular rivalry? Nature,
380, 621-624. [ PubMed]
Maier, A., Wilke, M., Logothetis,
N. K., & Leopold, D. A. (2003). Perception of temporally interleaved
ambiguous patterns. Current Biology,
13, 1076-1085. [ PubMed]
Mapp, A. P., Ono, H., &
Barbeito, R. (2003). What does the dominant eye dominate? A brief and somewhat
contentious review. Perception &
Psychophysics, 65, 310-317. [ PubMed]
Necker, N. A. (1832).
Observations on some remarkable optical phenomenon which occurs on viewing a
figure of a crystal of a geometric solid.
London and Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine
and Journal of Science, 1,
329-337.
Ono, H., &
Barbeito, R. (1985). Utrocular discrimination is not sufficient for utrocular
identification. Vision Research, 25,
289-299. [ PubMed]
Orbach, J., Ehrilch, D. &
Health, H. A. (1963). Reversibility of the Necker cube. I. An examination of the
concept of “satiation” of orientation.
Perceptual Motor Skills,
17, 439-458. [ PubMed]
Porac, C., & Coren, S.,
(1976). The dominant eye. Psychological
Bulletin, 83, 880-897. [ PubMed]
Rubin, E. (1958). Figure and
ground. In D. C. Beardslee & M.
Wertheimer (Eds.), Readings in
perception (pp. 194-203). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. (Original work
published 1915.)
Ramachandran, V. S., &
Anstis, S. M. (1985). Perceptual organization in multistable apparent motion.
Perception,
144, 135-143. [ PubMed]
Sternberg, S., & Knoll, R.
L. (1973) The perception of temporal order:
Fundamental issues and a general model. In S. Kornblum (Ed.),
Attention and Performance IV (pp.
629-685). New York: Academic Press.
Tong, F. (2001). Competing
theories of binocular rivalry: A possible resolution.
Brain & Mind,
2, 55-83.
Wolfe, J. M. (1996). Resolving
perceptual ambiguity. Nature,
380, 587-588. [ PubMed]
Wheatstone, C. (1838). On
some remarkable, and hitherto unobserved, phenomena of binocular vision.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London, 128,
371-394.
|
|