Article

Unraveling adaptation and mutual inhibition in perceptual rivalry.

Functional Neurobiology and Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Journal of Vision (Impact Factor: 2.48). 02/2006; 6(4):304-10. DOI: 10.1167/6.4.1
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT When the visual system is confronted with incompatible images in the same part of the visual field, the conscious percept switches back and forth between the rivaling stimuli. Such spontaneous flips provide important clues to the neuronal basis for visual awareness. The general idea is that two representations compete for dominance in a process of mutual inhibition, in which adaptation shifts the balance to and fro. The inherent nonlinear nature of the rivalrous flip-flop and its stochastic behavior, however, made it impossible to disentangle inhibition and adaptation. Here we report a general method to measure the time course, and asymmetries, of mechanisms involved in perceptual rivalry. Supported by model simulations, we show the dynamics of opponent interactions between mutual inhibition and adaptation. The findings not only provide new insight into the mechanism underlying rivalry but also offer new opportunities to study and compare a wide range of bistable processes in the brain and their relation to visual awareness.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
76 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose We sought brain activity that predicts visual consciousness. Methods We used electroencephalography (EEG) to measure brain activity to a 1000-ms display of sine-wave gratings, oriented vertically in one eye and horizontally in the other. This display yields binocular rivalry: irregular alternations in visual consciousness between the images viewed by the eyes. We replaced both gratings with 200 ms of darkness, the gap, before showing a second display of the same rival gratings for another 1000 ms. We followed this by a 1000-ms mask then a 2000-ms inter-trial interval (ITI). Eleven participants pressed keys after the second display in numerous trials to say whether the orientation of the visible grating changed from before to after the gap or not. Each participant also responded to numerous non-rivalry trials in which the gratings had identical orientations for the two eyes and for which the orientation of both either changed physically after the gap or did not. Results We found that greater activity from lateral occipital-parietal-temporal areas about 180 ms after initial onset of rival stimuli predicted a change in visual consciousness more than 1000 ms later, on re-presentation of the rival stimuli. We also found that less activity from parietal, central, and frontal electrodes about 400 ms after initial onset of rival stimuli predicted a change in visual consciousness about 800 ms later, on re-presentation of the rival stimuli. There was no such predictive activity when the change in visual consciousness occurred because the stimuli changed physically. Conclusion We found early EEG activity that predicted later visual consciousness. Predictive activity 180 ms after onset of the first display may reflect adaption of the neurons mediating visual consciousness in our displays. Predictive activity 400 ms after onset of the first display may reflect a less-reliable brain state mediating visual consciousness.
    PLoS ONE 10/2013; 8(10):e76134. · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Duel sports, such as fencing, boxing and table-tennis, like some “face-to-face” individuals in team sports, give rise to extremely fast visuo-motor interactions. These situations, characterized by a high level of uncertainty in space and time, require a very high level of visual attention from protagonists. Investigations carried out in these sports reveal, at the highest level of world ranking, an over-representation of manual left-handers, the majority of them having a right ocular dominance. Right-handers having a left dominant eye are also represented at a relatively high-rate. Experimental tasks with spatio-temporal uncertainty implemented in the laboratory have made it possible to confirm a visuo-motor advantage, in response time, in subjects having an eye–hand crossed laterality.
    Science & Sports - SCI SPORT. 01/2008; 23(6):263-277.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Levelt's four propositions (L1-L4), which characterize the relation between changes in "stimulus strength" in the two eyes and percept alternations, are considered benchmark for binocular rivalry models. It was recently demonstrated that adaptation mutual-inhibition models of binocular rivalry capture L4 only in a limited range of input strengths, predicting an increase rather than a decrease in dominance durations with increasing stimulus strength for weak stimuli. This observation challenges the validity of those models, but possibly L4 itself is invalid. So far, L1-L4 have been tested mainly by varying the contrast of static stimuli, but since binocular rivalry breaks down at low contrasts, it has been difficult to study L4. To circumvent this problem, and to test if the recent revision of L2 has more general validity, we studied changes in binocular rivalry evoked by manipulating coherence of oppositely-moving random-dot stimuli in the two eyes, and compared them against the effects of stimulus contrast. Thirteen human observers participated. Both contrast and coherence manipulations in one eye produced robust changes in both eyes; dominance durations of the eye receiving the stronger stimulus increased while those of the other eye decreased, albeit less steeply. This is inconsistent with L2 but supports its revision. When coherence was augmented in both eyes simultaneously, dominance durations first increased at low coherence, and then decreased for further increases in coherence. The same held true for the alternation periods. The initial increase in dominance durations was absent in the contrast experiments, but with coherence manipulations, rivalry could be tested at much lower stimulus strengths. Thus, we found that L4, like L2, is only valid in a limited range of stimulus strengths. Outside that range, the opposite is true. Apparent discrepancies between contrast and coherence experiments could be fully reconciled with adaptation mutual-inhibition models using a simple input transfer-function.
    PLoS ONE 01/2013; 8(8):e71931. · 3.53 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
33 Downloads
Available from
May 15, 2014