title: Influence of contrast and coherence on the temporal dynamics of binocular motion rivalry.
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.
authors: Section Biophysics, Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
authors: Artem
authors: A
authors: Platonov
authors: Jeroen
authors: J
authors: Goossens
mesh_terms: D006801:Humans; D009068:Movement; D010775:Photic Stimulation; D013997:Time Factors; D015357:Vision Disparity
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 1994 Dec;1(4):476-90
references: 24203555
references: Neuron. 2003 Aug 28;39(5):869-78
references: 12948452
references: J Neurophysiol. 1982 Jul;48(1):217-37
references: 7119846
references: Curr Biol. 2010 Aug 10;20(15):1362-7
references: 20598538
references: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42
references: 9176953
references: J Vis. 2006 Oct 26;6(11):1244-56
references: 17209732
references: SIAM J Appl Dyn Syst. 2008;7(2):609-649
references: 20953287
references: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
references: 9176952
references: PLoS One. 2008;3(10):e3473
references: 18941522
references: Nat Neurosci. 1999 May;2(5):405-6
references: 10321242
references: Perception. 1999;28(1):73-88
references: 10627854
references: Perception. 1988;17(2):215-28
references: 3067209
references: Nature. 1989 Sep 7;341(6237):52-4
references: 2770878
references: J Vis. 2008 May 23;8(5):12.1-19
references: 18842083
references: J Vis. 2011 Feb 22;11(2):
references: 21343327
references: PLoS One. 2007 Apr 04;2(4):e343
references: 17406667
references: J Vis. 2007 Jun 21;7(8):10
references: 17685817
references: J Neurophysiol. 2001 Oct;86(4):1916-36
references: 11600651
references: J Neurophysiol. 2007 Sep;98(3):1125-39
references: 17615138
references: J Neurophysiol. 2011 Nov;106(5):2136-50
references: 21775721
references: Vision Res. 2007 Sep;47(21):2741-50
references: 17764714
references: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010 Jan;72(1):179-86
references: 20045887
references: J Comput Neurosci. 2002 Jan-Feb;12(1):39-53
references: 11932559
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Nov 25;100(24):14499-503
references: 14612564
references: J Neurosci. 2002 Nov 1;22(21):9475-89
references: 12417672
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1977 May;3(2):251-7
references: 864397
references: Cognition. 2008 Sep;108(3):687-701
references: 18649876
references: Vis Neurosci. 1993 Nov-Dec;10(6):1157-69
references: 8257671
references: Neuron. 2002 Oct 10;36(2):299-308
references: 12383783
references: J Neurophysiol. 2007 Jan;97(1):462-73
references: 17065254
references: J Vis. 2010 Sep 01;10(11):1
references: 20884496
references: Psychol Rev. 1989 Jan;96(1):145-67
references: 2648445
references: Vis Neurosci. 1996 Jan-Feb;13(1):87-100
references: 8730992
references: J Vis. 2006 Feb 21;6(4):304-10
references: 16889470
references: Vision Res. 1993 Jul;33(10):1413-9
references: 8333162
references: J Neurosci. 1992 Dec;12(12):4745-65
references: 1464765
references: Biol Cybern. 1989;61(3):223-32
references: 2765591
references: J Neurophysiol. 2005 Dec;94(6):4412-20
references: 16148271
references: Nat Neurosci. 2006 May;9(5):690-6
references: 16617339
references: Vision Res. 1992 Aug;32(8):1471-9
references: 1455720
references: J Neurosci. 1996 Feb 15;16(4):1486-510
references: 8778300
references: Vision Res. 1990;30(1):1-10
references: 2321355