Persistent Biases in Binocular Rivalry Dynamics within the Visual Field

Integration and suppression interact in binocular vision

Contingent on stereo compatibility, two images presented dichoptically can lead to either binocular integration, thus generating stable stereopsis, or interocular suppression that induces binocular rivalry with bistable perception that alternates between the two images. The relationship between binocular integration and interocular suppression concerns how our brain processes binocular inputs to form unified visual awareness but remains unclear. Here, a series of psychophysical experiments were conducted to address this question, revealing that these collaborative and competitive binocular interactions are interconnected and would mediate one another according to their strength. Specifically, Experiments 1a and 1b showed that the presence of binocular rivalry inhibited peripheral stereopsis, significantly elevating the stereo threshold, with higher elevation resulting from increasing rivalry contrast. Experiments 2a and 2b showed that existing stereopsis with increasing binocular disparity balanced the dynamics of peripheral binocular rivalry, rendering more equivalent eye dominance. Based on these interactions, we suggest that binocular integration and interocular suppression may mediate one another through an overlapping mechanism for regulating eye dominance, with strong stereo percepts tending to reduce eye dominance and strong rivalry tending to increase eye dominance.

Measuring the reliability of binocular rivalry

Binocular rivalry is a widely used tool in sensory and cognitive neuroscience to investigate different aspects of vision and cognition. The dynamics of binocular rivalry (e.g., duration of perceptual dominance phases and mixed percept proportions) differ across individuals; based on rivalry dynamics, it is also possible to calculate an index of ocular dominance (by comparing the perceptual dominance of the images in the two eyes). In this study, we investigated the reliability of binocular rivalry dynamics using different methods for dichoptic stimulation and different rivalry stimuli. For the three main indices we defined (ocular dominance, phase durations and mixed percept proportions), we found a high test-retest reliability across sessions. Moreover, the test-retest reliability of the ocular dominance index was predictable from its internal consistency, supporting its stability over time. Phase durations and mixed percept proportions, in contrast, had worse test-retest reliability than expected based on internal consistency, indicating that these parameters are susceptible to state-dependent changes. Our results support the use of the ocular dominance index and binocular rivalry in the measurement of sensory eye dominance and its plasticity, but advise caution when investigating the association between phase durations or mixed percepts and stable characteristics like psychological traits or disorders.

A nasal visual field advantage in interocular competition

When our eyes are confronted with discrepant images (yielding incompatible retinal inputs) interocular competition (IOC) is instigated. During IOC, one image temporarily dominates perception, while the other is suppressed. Many factors affecting IOC have been extensively examined. One factor that received surprisingly little attention, however, is the stimulus’ visual hemifield (VHF) of origin. This is remarkable, as the VHF location of stimuli is known to affect visual performance in various contexts. Prompted by exploratory analyses, we examined five independent datasets of breaking continuous flash suppression experiments, to establish the VHF’s role in IOC. We found that targets presented in nasal VHF locations broke through suppression much faster than targets in temporal VHF locations. Furthermore, we found that the magnitude of this nasal advantage depended on how strongly the targets were suppressed: the nasal advantage was larger for the recessive eye than for the dominant eye, and was larger in observers with a greater dominance imbalance between the eyes. Our findings suggest that the nasal advantage reported here originates in processing stages where IOC is resolved. Finally, we propose that a nasal advantage in IOC serves an adaptive role in human vision, as it can aid perception of partially occluded objects.

Exercise alone impacts short-term adult visual neuroplasticity in a monocular deprivation paradigm

Adult homeostatic visual plasticity can be induced by short-term patching, heralded by a shift in ocular dominance in favor of the deprived eye after monocular occlusion. The potential to boost visual neuroplasticity with environmental enrichment such as exercise has also been explored; however, the results are inconsistent, with some studies finding no additive effect of exercise. Studies to date have only considered the effect of patching alone or in combination with exercise. Whether exercise alone affects typical outcome measures of experimental estimates of short-term visual neuroplasticity is unknown. We therefore measured binocular rivalry in 20 healthy young adults (20–34 years old) at baseline and after three 2-hour interventions: patching (of the dominant eye) only, patching with exercise, and exercise only. Consistent with previous work, the patching interventions produced a shift in ocular dominance toward the deprived (dominant) eye. Mild- to moderate-intensity exercise in the absence of patching had several effects on binocular rivalry metrics, including a reduction in the dominant eye percept. The proportion of mixed percept and the time to first switch (onset rivalry) did not change from baseline across all interventions. Thus, we demonstrate that exercise alone can impact binocular rivalry outcomes measures. We did not observe a synergistic effect between patching and exercise in our data.

Some psychophysical tasks measure ocular dominance plasticity more reliably than others

In the recent decade, studies have shown that short-term monocular deprivation strengthens the deprived eye's contribution to binocular vision. However, the magnitude of the change in eye dominance after monocular deprivation (i.e., the patching effect) has been found to be different between different methods and within the same method. There are three possible explanations for the discrepancy. First, the mechanisms underlying the patching effect that are probed by different measurement tasks might exist at different neural sites. Second, the test–retest variability of the same test can produce inconsistent results. Third, the magnitude of the patching effect itself within the same observer can vary across separate days or experimental sessions. To explore these possibilities, we assessed the test–retest reliability of the three most commonly used tasks (binocular rivalry, binocular combination, and dichoptic masking) and the repeatability of the shift in eye dominance after short-term monocular deprivation for each of the task. Two variations for binocular phase combination were used, at one and many contrasts of the stimuli. Also, two variations for dichoptic masking were employed; the orientation of the mask grating was either horizontal or vertical. Thus, five different tasks were evaluated. We hoped to resolve some of the inconsistencies reported in the literature concerning this form of visual plasticity. In this study, we also aimed to recommend a measurement method that would allow us to better understand its physiological basis and the underpinning of visual disorders.

Sensory Eye Dominance: Relationship Between Eye and Brain

Eye dominance refers to the preference to use one eye more than the fellow eye to accomplish a task. However, the dominant eye revealed can be task dependent especially when the tasks are as diverse as instructing the observer to sight a target through a ring, or to report which half-image is perceived more of during binocular rivalry stimulation. Conventionally, the former task is said to reveal motor eye dominance while the latter task reveals sensory eye dominance. While the consensus is that the motor and sensory-dominant eye could be different in some observers, the reason for it is still unclear and has not been much researched. This review mainly focuses on advances made in recent studies of sensory eye dominance. It reviews studies conducted to quantify and relate sensory eye dominance to other visual functions, in particular to stereopsis, as well as studies conducted to explore its plasticity. It is recognized that sensory eye dominance in observers with clinically normal vision shares some similarity with amblyopia at least at the behavioral level, in that both exhibit an imbalance of interocular inhibition. Furthermore, sensory eye dominance is probably manifested at multiple sites along the visual pathway, perhaps including the level of ocular dominance columns. But future studies with high-resolution brain imaging approaches are required to confirm this speculation in the human visual system.

Rivalry Onset in and around the Fovea: The Role of Visual Field Location and Eye Dominance on Perceptual Dominance Bias

When dissimilar images are presented to each eye, the images will alternate every few seconds in a phenomenon known as binocular rivalry. Recent research has found evidence of a bias towards one image at the initial 'onset' period of rivalry that varies across the peripheral visual field. To determine the role that visual field location plays in and around the fovea at onset, trained observers were presented small orthogonal achromatic grating patches at various locations across the central 3° of visual space for 1-s and 60-s intervals. Results reveal stronger bias at onset than during continuous rivalry, and evidence of temporal hemifield dominance across observers, however, the nature of the hemifield effects differed between individuals and interacted with overall eye dominance. Despite using small grating patches, a high proportion of mixed percept was still reported, with more mixed percept at onset along the vertical midline, in general, and in increasing proportions with eccentricity in the lateral hemifields. Results show that even within the foveal range, onset rivalry bias varies across visual space, and differs in degree and sensitivity to biases in average dominance over continuous viewing.

Individual variation in inter-ocular suppression and sensory eye dominance

The competitive and inhibitory interactions between the two eyes' images are a pervasive aspect of binocular vision. Over the last decade, our understanding of the neural processes underpinning binocular rivalry (BR) and continuous flash suppression (CFS) has increased substantially, but we still have little understanding of the relationship between these two effects and their variation in the general population. Studies that pool data across individuals and eyes risk masking substantial variations in binocular vision that exist in the general population. To investigate this issue we compared the depth of inter-ocular suppression evoked by BR with that elicited by CFS, in a group (N = 25) of visually normal individuals. A noise pattern (either static for BR or dynamic for CFS) was presented to one eye and its suppressive influence on a probe grating presented simultaneously to the other eye was measured. We found substantial individual differences in the magnitude of suppression (a 10-fold variation in probe detection threshold) evoked by each task, but performance on BR was a significant predictor of performance on the CFS task. However many individuals showed marked asymmetries between the two eyes' ability to detect a suppressed target, that were not necessarily the same for the two tasks. There was a tendency for the magnitude of the asymmetry to increase as the refresh rate of the dynamic noise increased. The results suggest a common underlying mechanism is likely to be responsible, at least in part, for driving inter-ocular suppression under BR and CFS. The marked asymmetries in inter-ocular suppression at higher noise refresh rates, may be indicative of a difference in temporal processing between the eyes.

Effect of Interocular Contrast Difference on Stereopsis in Observers With Sensory Eye Dominance

Purpose

We investigated how sensory eye dominance (SED) affects stereopsis when the half-images of random-dot-stereo stimuli had different interocular contrast.

Methods

We measured crossed and uncrossed stereo disparity thresholds and reaction time to seeing random-dot-stereograms with variable interocular contrast differences (ICD), where ICD = (log10 [CLE] - log10 [CRE]) = -0.4, -0.2, 0, 0.2, or 0.4 log unit. The mean contrast of the stimuli, (log10 [CLE] + log10 [CRE])/2, remained constant at 1.2 log unit to ensure that the measured effect was solely due to ICD. We also measured SED using, respectively, dichoptic horizontal sine wave gratings with different phases (revealing SEDcombo) and dichoptic vertical and horizontal gratings (revealing SEDinhibition).

Results

Both measures of SEDinhibition and SEDcombo revealed the observers had the same eye as dominant although the magnitudes differed. The observers had lower stereo thresholds and shorter stereo reaction time on stimuli with unequal interocular contrast when the non-sensory-dominant eye viewed the higher contrast half-image, suggesting a stimulus-compensating effect. We then estimated the ICD of random-dot-stereo half-images (compensating stimuli) that would lead to minimum stereo threshold (SEDstereo-threshold) and reaction time (SEDstereo-RT) based on the stereo performance and ICD relationship, and found that they were significantly smaller than SEDinhibition and SEDcombo.

Conclusions

By linking SEDinhibition and SEDcombo with the effect of ICD on stereopsis, we provided further support for the notion that the stimulus-compensating effect is mediated by the interocular inhibitory and interocular gain control mechanisms. Furthermore, the interocular contrast for SEDstereo-threshold and SEDstereo-RT can be potentially applied for improving stereopsis in individuals with SED.

Individual differences in continuous flash suppression: Potency and linkages to binocular rivalry dynamics

Binocular rivalry (BR) and continuous flash suppression (CFS) are compelling psychophysical phenomena involving interocular suppression. Using an individual differences approach we assessed whether interocular suppression induced by CFS is predictable in potency from characteristics of BR that are plausibly governed by interocular inhibition. We found large individual differences in BR dynamics and, in addition, in the strength of CFS as gauged by the incidence and durations of breakthroughs in CFS during an extended viewing periods. CFS's potency waned with repeated trials, but stable individual differences persisted despite these mean shifts. We also discovered large individual differences in the strength of the post-CFS shift in BR dominance produced by interocular suppression. While CFS breakthroughs were significantly negatively correlated with shifts in BR dominance after CFS, there were no significant associations between individual differences in alternation rate during pre-CFS binocular rivalry and either breakthroughs during CFS or post-CFS dominance shifts. Bayesian hypothesis tests and highest posterior density intervals confirmed the weak association between these two forms of interocular suppression. Thus, our findings suggest that the substantial individual differences in BR dynamics and CFS effectiveness are modestly related but not entirely mediated by one common neural substrate.

On Sensory Eye Dominance Revealed by Binocular Integrative and Binocular Competitive Stimuli

Purpose

Two core processes underlie 3-D binocular vision. The first, a binocular combination/summation process, integrates similar feature signals from the two eye channels to form a binocular representation. The second, a binocular inhibitory process, suppresses interocular conflicting signals or falsely matched binocular representations to establish single vision. Having an intrinsic interocular imbalance within one or both processes can cause sensory eye dominance (SED), related to imbalances of combination (SEDcombo) and/or inhibition (SEDinhibition). While much has recently been revealed about SEDcombo and SEDinhibition, the relationship between them is still unknown.

Methods

We measured observers' foveal SEDcombo and SEDinhibition, respectively, with a pair of dichoptic horizontal sine wave gratings with different phases and binocular rivalry stimulus with vertical and horizontal gratings. We then measured horizontal and vertical monocular contrast thresholds using sinusoidal grating stimuli, and stereo thresholds using random-dot stereograms.

Results

There exists a strong correlation between SEDcombo and SEDinhibition. An observer's interocular difference in contrast threshold was not always consistent with his/her SEDcombo and SEDinhihition, suggesting a partial binocular origin for the underlying imbalances. We also found stereo thresholds significantly increased with the magnitudes of SEDcombo, as well as with the magnitude of SEDinhibition.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest a common origin for interocular imbalance in the two different binocular processes and that both types of sensory eye dominance are significant factors in impeding stereopsis.

Neural dynamics of breaking continuous flash suppression

Sensory input to the human visual system often becomes accessible to cognition and overt report during processing. We investigated neural precursors of conscious vision using EEG recordings and the popular breaking continuous flash suppression (bCFS) paradigm. In this technique, a mask consisting of high-contrast dynamic patterns is presented to one eye, predominating over a target stimulus presented to the other eye. The time needed for the target stimulus to overcome the suppression is thought to reflect the transition from unconscious to conscious perception. In bCFS trials with slow responses, indicative of potent suppression, a time-frequency analysis showed reduced occipital gamma power (33-38 Hz) contralaterally to the visual hemifield where the target was presented 0.27 to 0.21 s prior to the behavioral response. This neural activity was concurrent with a local phase reset and enhanced long-range phase synchronization in the theta band (7 Hz). Such a pattern did not arise in a control condition in which suppression was not induced. Thus, the theta phase reset and synchronization in bCFS trials precede a break from suppression, likely initiating a re-routing of information such that the neural representation of the target is updated more efficiently than that of the competing mask. Overall, these findings mark the emergence of a binocularly integrated percept that can be consciously selected for a behavioral response.