Chris L. E. Paffen

Attention Speeds Binocular Rivalry

During binocular rivalry, incompatible images presented dichoptically compete for perceptual dominance. It has long been debated whether binocular rivalry can be controlled by attention. Most studies have shown that voluntary control over binocular rivalry is limited. We sought to remove attention from binocular rivalry by presenting a concurrent task. Diverting attention slowed the rivalry alternation rate, and did so in proportion to the difficulty of the concurrent task. Even a very demanding distractor task, however, did not arrest rivalry alternations completely. Given that diverting attention was equivalent to lowering the contrast of the rival stimuli, the ability of attention to speed binocular rivalry is most likely due to an increase in the effective contrast of the stimuli through boosting the gain of the cortical response. This increase in effective contrast will ultimately lead to a perceptual switch, thereby limiting voluntary control. Thus, attention speeds rivalry alternations, but has no inherent control over the rivalry process.

Breaking continuous flash suppression: competing for consciousness on the pre-semantic battlefield

Traditionally, interocular suppression is believed to disrupt high-level (i.e., semantic or conceptual) processing of the suppressed visual input. The development of a new experimental paradigm, breaking continuous flash suppression (b-CFS), has caused a resurgence of studies demonstrating high-level processing of visual information in the absence of visual awareness. In this method the time it takes for interocularly suppressed stimuli to breach the threshold of visibility, is regarded as a measure of access to awareness. The aim of the current review is twofold. First, we provide an overview of the literature using this b-CFS method, while making a distinction between two types of studies: those in which suppression durations are compared between different stimulus classes (such as upright faces versus inverted faces), and those in which suppression durations are compared for stimuli that either match or mismatch concurrently available information (such as a colored target that either matches or mismatches a color retained in working memory). Second, we aim at dissociating high-level processing from low-level (i.e., crude visual) processing of the suppressed stimuli. For this purpose, we include a thorough review of the control conditions that are used in these experiments. Additionally, we provide recommendations for proper control conditions that we deem crucial for disentangling high-level from low-level effects. Based on this review, we argue that crude visual processing suffices for explaining differences in breakthrough times reported using b-CFS. As such, we conclude that there is as yet no reason to assume that interocularly suppressed stimuli receive full semantic analysis.

Attentional Modulation of Binocular Rivalry

Ever since Wheatstone initiated the scientific study of binocular rivalry, it has been debated whether the phenomenon is under attentional control. In recent years, the issue of attentional modulation of binocular rivalry has seen a revival. Here we review the classical studies as well as recent advances in the study of attentional modulation of binocular rivalry. We show that (1) voluntary control over binocular rivalry is possible, yet limited, (2) both endogenous and exogenous attention influence perceptual dominance during rivalry, (3) diverting attention from rival displays does not arrest perceptual alternations, and that (4) rival targets by themselves can also attract attention. From a theoretical perspective, we suggest that attention affects binocular rivalry by modulating the effective contrast of the images in competition. This contrast enhancing effect of top-down attention is counteracted by a response attenuating effect of neural adaptation at early levels of visual processing, which weakens the response to the dominant image. Moreover, we conclude that although frontal and parietal brain areas involved in both binocular rivalry and visual attention overlap, an adapting reciprocal inhibition arrangement at early visual cortex is sufficient to trigger switches in perceptual dominance independently of a higher-level “selection” mechanisms. Both of these processes are reciprocal and therefore self-balancing, with the consequence that complete attentional control over binocular rivalry can never be realized.

Adaptive center-surround interactions in human vision revealed during binocular rivalry

We used binocular rivalry as a psychophysical probe to explore center-surround interactions in orientation, motion and color processing. Addition of the surround matching one of the rival targets dramatically altered rivalry dynamics. For all visual sub-modalities tested, predominance of the high-contrast rival target matched to the surround was greatly reduced-a result that disappeared at low contrast. At low contrast, addition of the surround boosted dominance of orientation and motion targets matched to the surround. This contrast-dependent modulation of center-surround interactions seems to be a general property of the visual system and may reflect an adaptive balance between surround suppression and spatial summation.

Center-surround inhibition and facilitation as a function of size and contrast at multiple levels of visual motion processing

Visual context often plays a crucial role in visual processing. In the domain of visual motion processing, the response to a stimulus presented to a neurons classical receptive field can be modulated by presenting stimuli to its surround. The nature of these center-surround interactions is often inhibitory; the neural response decreases when the same direction of motion is presented to center and surround. Here we use binocular rivalry as a tool to study center-surround interactions. We show that magnitude of surround suppression varies as a function of luminance contrast and surround width. Increasing the size of surround motion increased surround suppression at high contrast. Furthermore, large, high-contrast surrounds facilitated opposite-direction motion in the center. For stimuli presented at low contrast, surround suppression peaked at a smaller surround width. In addition, we provide evidence that surround inhibition occurs at multiple levels of visual processing: Surround inhibition in motion processing is likely to originate from both monocular and binocular processing stages.

Center-surround interactions in visual motion processing during binocular rivalry

When each eye is confronted with a dissimilar stimulus, the percept will generally alternate between the two. This phenomenon is known as binocular rivalry. Although binocular rivalry occurs at locations where targets overlap spatially, the area surrounding rivalrous targets can modulate their dominance. Here we show that during binocular rivalry of oppositely moving gratings, a surrounding grating moving in the same direction as one of the two leads to increased dominance of the opposite direction of motion in the center. This increased dominance of the opposite direction in the center was observed irrespective of the eye to which the surround was presented. Inspection of the results for different conditions reveals that the preference for the opposite direction of motion cannot be explained by a single mechanism operating beyond binocular fusion. We therefore suggest that this phenomenon is the outcome of center-surround interactions at multiple levels along the pathway of visual motion processing.

Information Matching the Content of Visual Working Memory Is Prioritized for Conscious Access

Visual working memory (VWM) is used to retain relevant information for imminent goal-directed behavior. In the experiments reported here, we found that VWM helps to prioritize relevant information that is not yet available for conscious experience. In five experiments, we demonstrated that information matching VWM content reaches visual awareness faster than does information not matching VWM content. Our findings suggest a functional link between VWM and visual awareness: The content of VWM is recruited to funnel down the vast amount of sensory input to that which is relevant for subsequent behavior and therefore requires conscious access.

Attention-based perceptual learning increases binocular rivalry suppression of irrelevant visual features

Perceptual learning refers to an improvement on a perceptual task after repeated exposure to a stimulus. It has been shown that attention can play an important role in perceptual learning. Recently, it has been suggested that training can lead to increased suppression of information that is continuously irrelevant, and that this attention-based suppression plays an important role in more efficient noise exclusion. Here we investigate this claim. Observers performed a visual speed-discrimination task for 5 consecutive days. After training, sensitivity to motion directions that were relevant, irrelevant, or neutral toward the training task was assessed by measuring motion coherence thresholds. In addition, perceptual dominance during binocular rivalry was assessed for combinations of the three motion directions. The results showed that sensitivity to the task-relevant feature increased due to training. That is, motion coherence thresholds were selectively lowered for the task-relevant feature. Interestingly, the feature that was task-irrelevant during training was more strongly suppressed during binocular rivalry: The mean perceptual dominance of this feature was selectively decreased. Our results show that task-irrelevant information that potentially interferes with the primary task during learning gets more strongly suppressed. Furthermore, our results add new evidence in support of the claim that mechanisms involved in visual attention and binocular rivalry overlap.

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

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.

Center-surround inhibition deepens binocular rivalry suppression

When dissimilar stimuli are presented to each eye, perception alternates between both images--a phenomenon known as binocular rivalry. It has been shown that stimuli presented in proximity of rival targets modulate the time each target is perceptually dominant. For example, presenting motion to the region surrounding the rival targets decreases the predominance of the same-direction target. Here, using a stationary concentric grating rivaling with a drifting grating, we show that a drifting surround grating also increases the depth of binocular rivalry suppression, as measured by sensitivity to a speed discrimination probe on the rival grating. This was especially so when the surround moved in the same direction as the grating, and was slightly weaker for opposed directions. Suppression in both cases was deeper than a no-surround control condition. We hypothesize that surround suppression often observed in area MT (V5)-a visual area implicated in visual motion perception-is responsible for this increase in suppression. In support of this hypothesis, monocular and binocular surrounds were both effective in increasing suppression depth, as were surrounds contralateral to the probed eye. Static and orthogonal motion surrounds failed to add to the depth of rivalry suppression. These results implicate a higher-level, fully binocular area whose surround inhibition provides an additional source of suppression which sums with rivalry suppression to effectively deepen suppression of an unseen rival target.