title: Individual differences in the temporal dynamics of binocular rivalry and stimulus rivalry.
abstract: Binocular rivalry and stimulus rivalry are two forms of perceptual instability that arise when the visual system is confronted with conflicting stimulus information. In the case of binocular rivalry, dissimilar monocular stimuli are presented to the two eyes for an extended period of time, whereas for stimulus rivalry the dissimilar monocular stimuli are exchanged rapidly and repetitively between the eyes during extended viewing. With both forms of rivalry, one experiences extended durations of exclusive perceptual dominance that fluctuate between the two stimuli. Whether these two forms of rivalry arise within different stages of visual processing has remained debatable. Using an individual-differences approach, we found that both stimulus rivalry and binocular rivalry exhibited same-shaped distributions of dominance durations among a sample of 30 observers and, moreover, that the dominance durations measured during binocular and stimulus rivalry were significantly correlated among our sample of observers. Furthermore, we found a significant, positive correlation between alternation rate in binocular rivalry and the incidence of stimulus rivalry. These results suggest that the two forms of rivalry may be tapping common neural mechanisms, or at least different mechanisms with comparable time constants. It remains to be learned just why the incidences of binocular rivalry and stimulus rivalry vary so greatly among people.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology/Interdisciplinary Program in Neuroscience, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
authors.forename: Vaama
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Patel
authors.forename: Sjoerd
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Stuit
authors.forename: Randolph
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Blake
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001288:Attention; D001364:Awareness; D003118:Color Perception; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007206:Individuality; D008297:Male; D009949:Orientation; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D010775:Photic Stimulation / Q000379:methods; D013223:Statistics as Topic; D013997:Time Factors; D015357:Vision Disparity; D015348:Vision, Binocular
references.citation: Vision Res. 2003 Sep;43(19):2003-8
references.pmid: 12842153
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Jun;15(3):586-91
references.pmid: 18567259
references.citation: J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2009 Dec;26(12):2612-22
references.pmid: 19956332
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 1999 Jul;3(7):254-264
references.pmid: 10377540
references.citation: J Vis. 2005 Apr 04;5(4):287-98
references.pmid: 15929652
references.citation: J Vis. 2011 Feb 22;11(2):
references.pmid: 21343327
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2010 Aug 24;20(16):1464-9
references.pmid: 20674360
references.citation: Neural Comput. 2003 Dec;15(12):2863-82
references.pmid: 14629871
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: J Vis. 2009 Oct 16;9(11):17.1-15
references.pmid: 20053080
references.citation: Vision Res. 1999 Apr;39(8):1447-54
references.pmid: 10343813
references.citation: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002 Jan;3(1):13-21
references.pmid: 11823801
references.citation: Vision Res. 2001 Apr;41(8):981-9
references.pmid: 11301073
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 1998 Mar;8(2):97-107
references.pmid: 9542889
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2012 Jan;24(1):246-59
references.pmid: 21861685
references.citation: Iperception. 2012;3(1):88-96
references.pmid: 23145268
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014 Mar 17;369(1641):20130211
references.pmid: 24639582
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Nov 25;100(24):14499-503
references.pmid: 14612564
references.citation: Perception. 2003;32(3):295-305
references.pmid: 12729381
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2013 May 6;23(9):823-7
references.pmid: 23602476
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2010 Aug 10;20(15):1362-7
references.pmid: 20598538
references.citation: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42
references.pmid: 9176953
references.citation: Neural Comput. 1998 Jul 1;10(5):1119-35
references.pmid: 9654769
references.citation: Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Sep 25;6:263
references.pmid: 23055962
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Jul;13(7):310-8
references.pmid: 19540794
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 May 21;110(21):8337-44
references.pmid: 23610414
references.citation: Nature. 1996 Apr 18;380(6575):621-4
references.pmid: 8602261
references.citation: J Comput Neurosci. 2001 Jan-Feb;10(1):25-45
references.pmid: 11316338
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1998 Nov 29;353(1377):1801-18
references.pmid: 9854253
references.citation: J Vis. 2008 Aug 05;8(11):2.1-13
references.pmid: 18831596
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Dec 24;93(26):15508-11
references.pmid: 8986842
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1989 Jan;96(1):145-67
references.pmid: 2648445
references.citation: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
references.pmid: 9176952
references.citation: J Comput Neurosci. 2009 Aug;27(1):37-54
references.pmid: 19125318