TY - JOUR
T1 - More superimposition for contrast-modulated than luminance-modulated stimuli during binocular rivalry
AU - Skerswetat, Jan
AU - Formankiewicz, Monika A.
AU - Waugh, Sarah J.
N1 - Funding Information:
Jan Skerswetat was funded by Anglia Ruskin University , Faculty of Science and Technology, Ph.D. research studentship. The equipment used during the experimentation was funded by a grant from Evelyn Trust . Portions of this outcomes were presented in a poster at the European Conference for Visual Perception (ECVP) 2015.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd
Copyright:
Copyright 2017 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2018/1/1
Y1 - 2018/1/1
N2 - Luminance-modulated noise (LM) and contrast-modulated noise (CM) gratings were presented with interocularly correlated, uncorrelated and anti-correlated binary noise to investigate their contributions to mixed percepts, specifically piecemeal and superimposition, during binocular rivalry. Stimuli were sine-wave gratings of 2 c/deg presented within 2 deg circular apertures. The LM stimulus contrast was 0.1 and the CM stimulus modulation depth was 1.0, equating to approximately 5 and 7 times detection threshold, respectively. Twelve 45 s trials, per noise configuration, were carried out. Fifteen participants with normal vision indicated via button presses whether an exclusive, piecemeal or superimposed percept was seen. For all noise conditions LM stimuli generated more exclusive visibility, and lower proportions of superimposition. CM stimuli led to greater proportions and longer periods of superimposition. For both stimulus types, correlated interocular noise generated more superimposition than did anti- or uncorrelated interocular noise. No significant effect of stimulus type (LM vs CM) or noise configuration (correlated, uncorrelated, anti-correlated) on piecemeal perception was found. Exclusive visibility was greater in proportion, and perceptual changes more numerous, during binocular rivalry for CM stimuli when interocular noise was not correlated. This suggests that mutual inhibition, initiated by non-correlated noise CM gratings, occurs between neurons processing luminance noise (first-order component), as well as those processing gratings (second-order component). Therefore, first- and second-order components can contribute to overall binocular rivalry responses. We suggest the addition of a new well to the current energy landscape model for binocular rivalry that takes superimposition into account.
AB - Luminance-modulated noise (LM) and contrast-modulated noise (CM) gratings were presented with interocularly correlated, uncorrelated and anti-correlated binary noise to investigate their contributions to mixed percepts, specifically piecemeal and superimposition, during binocular rivalry. Stimuli were sine-wave gratings of 2 c/deg presented within 2 deg circular apertures. The LM stimulus contrast was 0.1 and the CM stimulus modulation depth was 1.0, equating to approximately 5 and 7 times detection threshold, respectively. Twelve 45 s trials, per noise configuration, were carried out. Fifteen participants with normal vision indicated via button presses whether an exclusive, piecemeal or superimposed percept was seen. For all noise conditions LM stimuli generated more exclusive visibility, and lower proportions of superimposition. CM stimuli led to greater proportions and longer periods of superimposition. For both stimulus types, correlated interocular noise generated more superimposition than did anti- or uncorrelated interocular noise. No significant effect of stimulus type (LM vs CM) or noise configuration (correlated, uncorrelated, anti-correlated) on piecemeal perception was found. Exclusive visibility was greater in proportion, and perceptual changes more numerous, during binocular rivalry for CM stimuli when interocular noise was not correlated. This suggests that mutual inhibition, initiated by non-correlated noise CM gratings, occurs between neurons processing luminance noise (first-order component), as well as those processing gratings (second-order component). Therefore, first- and second-order components can contribute to overall binocular rivalry responses. We suggest the addition of a new well to the current energy landscape model for binocular rivalry that takes superimposition into account.
KW - Binocular rivalry
KW - First-order
KW - Interocular noise
KW - Piecemeal percepts
KW - Second-order
KW - Superimposition
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85033599363&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.visres.2017.10.002
DO - 10.1016/j.visres.2017.10.002
M3 - Article
C2 - 29102622
AN - SCOPUS:85033599363
VL - 142
SP - 40
EP - 51
JO - Vision Research
JF - Vision Research
SN - 0042-6989
ER -