title: Stimulus fractionation by interocular suppression.
abstract: Can human observers distinguish physical removal of a visible stimulus from phenomenal suppression of that stimulus during binocular rivalry? As so often happens, simple questions produce complex answers, and that is the case in the study reported here. Using continuous flash suppression to produce binocular rivalry, we were able to identify stimulus conditions where most - but not all - people utterly fail to distinguish physical from phenomenal stimulus removal, although we can be certain that those two equivalent perceptual states are accompanied by distinct neural events. More interestingly, we find subtle variants of the task where distinguishing the two states is trivially easy, even for people who utterly fail under the original conditions. We found that stimulus features are differentially vulnerable to suppression. Observers are able to be aware of existence/removal of some stimulus attributes (flicker) but not others (orientation), implying that interocular suppression breaks down the unitary awareness of integrated features belonging to a visual object. These findings raise questions about the unitary nature of awareness and, also, place qualifications on the utility of binocular rivalry as a tool for studying the neural concomitants of conscious visual awareness.
authors.affiliation: Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Seoul National University Seoul, South Korea.
authors.forename: Asieh
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Zadbood
authors.forename: Sang-Hun
authors.initials: SH
authors.lastname: Lee
authors.forename: Randolph
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Blake
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2005 Aug;8(8):1096-101
references.pmid: 15995700
references.citation: Exp Neurol. 1966 Mar;14(3):351-70
references.pmid: 4951848
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2011 Jun;22(6):764-70
references.pmid: 21555524
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Sep;108(3):687-701
references.pmid: 18649876
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Nov;10(11):502-11
references.pmid: 16997612
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2010 Aug 10;20(15):1362-7
references.pmid: 20598538
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2003 Feb;6(2):119-26
references.pmid: 12555104
references.citation: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
references.pmid: 9176952
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2001 Feb;63(2):348-60
references.pmid: 11281109
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2002 Jun;131(2):241-54
references.pmid: 12049242
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2000 Sep 7;10(17):1055-8
references.pmid: 10996073
references.citation: J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2009 Dec;26(12):2612-22
references.pmid: 19956332
references.citation: Prog Brain Res. 2005;150:45-53
references.pmid: 16186014
references.citation: Vision Res. 1996 Jul;36(13):1907-18
references.pmid: 8759430
references.citation: J Vis. 2008 Nov 21;8(15):10.1-12
references.pmid: 19146294
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 Aug;9(8):381-8
references.pmid: 16006172
references.citation: Vision Res. 1975 Feb;15(2):217-23
references.pmid: 1129978
references.citation: J Vis. 2005 Apr 04;5(4):287-98
references.pmid: 15929652
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 1999 May;2(5):405-6
references.pmid: 10321242
references.citation: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2009 Feb;71(2):403-11
references.pmid: 19304629
references.citation: Nature. 1996 Feb 8;379(6565):549-53
references.pmid: 8596635
references.citation: Vision Res. 2002 Feb;42(3):301-9
references.pmid: 11809483
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2005 Oct 11;15(19):1740-4
references.pmid: 16213820
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1986 Jan;39(1):59-63
references.pmid: 3703662
references.citation: Vision Res. 1989;29(10):1325-33
references.pmid: 2635462
references.citation: Vision Res. 1981;21(7):1115-22
references.pmid: 7314490
references.citation: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42
references.pmid: 9176953
references.citation: Prog Neurobiol. 2009 Apr;87(4):195-211
references.pmid: 18824061
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2000 Nov;3(11):1153-9
references.pmid: 11036274
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Jul;13(7):310-8
references.pmid: 19540794
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2001 Nov;63(8):1293-313
references.pmid: 11800458
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1980 Aug;28(2):150-4
references.pmid: 7432989
references.citation: Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1990 Apr 23;239(1296):247-78
references.pmid: 1972792
references.citation: J Physiol. 1975 Sep;250(2):347-66
references.pmid: 1177145