Binocularity and visual search

Learning to discriminate the eye-of-origin during continuous flash suppression

Helmholtz asked whether one could discriminate which eye is the origin of one's perception merely based on the retinal signals. Studies to date showed that participants' ability to tell the eye-of-origin most likely depends on contextual cues. Nevertheless, it has been shown that exogenous attention can enhance performance for monocularly presented stimuli. We questioned whether adults can be trained to discriminate the eye-of-origin of their perceptions and if this ability depends on the strength of the monocular channels. We used attentional feed-forward training to improve the subject's eye-of-origin discrimination performance with voluntary attention. During training, participants received a binocular cue to inform them of the eye-of-origin of an upcoming target. Using continuous flash suppression, we also measured the signal strength of the monocular targets to see any possible modulations related to the cues. We collected confidence ratings from the participants about their eye-of-origin judgements to study in further detail whether metacognition has access to this information. Our results show that, even though voluntary attention did not alter the strength of the monocular channels, eye-of-origin discrimination performance improved following the training. A similar pattern was observed for confidence. The results from the feedforward attentional training and the increase in subjective confidence point towards a high-level decisional mechanism being responsible for the eye-of-origin judgements. We propose that this high-level process is informed by subtle sensory cues such as the differences in luminance or contrast in the two monocular channels.

Binocular luster elicited by isoluminant chromatic stimuli relies on mechanisms similar to those in the achromatic case

The phenomenon of binocular luster can be evoked by simple dichoptic center-surround stimuli showing a luminance contrast difference between the eyes. Previous findings support the idea that this phenomenon is mediated by a low-level conflict mechanism that integrates the monocular signals from different types of contrast detector cells. Also, isoluminant stimuli with different chromatic contrasts between eyes can trigger sensations of luster. Here, we investigate whether the lustrous impression in such purely chromatic stimuli depends on interocular contrast differences and in particular on interocular contrast polarity pairings in a similar way as in the achromatic case. In our experiments, we measured the magnitude of the lustrous response using a series of isoluminant dichoptic center-ring-surround stimuli with varying ring width whose chromatic properties were varied along the red-green and blue-yellow cardinal directions. The trends in the data were very similar to those of our former study with achromatic stimuli, indicating similar mechanisms in both cases. The empirical luster data could also be predicted fairly well by a chromatic version of our interocular conflict model (with overall R2 values between 0.577 and 0.639), for which two different receptive field models were used, simulating the behavior of color-sensitive double-opponent cells in V1.

A simple model of binocular luster

The dichoptic combination of simple center–surround stimuli showing a contrast difference between eyes can trigger a lustrous impression in the fused percept, particularly when the contrast polarities in the two input images are of opposite sign. Recent developments suggest that the phenomenon of binocular luster results from a neural conflict between ON and OFF visual pathways at an early binocular level. Support for this idea was found in a previous study in which the empirical luster judgments strongly correlated with the predictions of an interocular conflict model which was based on such ON–OFF pairings. However, our original model could not account for the fact that weaker lustrous sensations can also be evoked by stimuli showing contrast polarities of same sign between eyes. In the present study we present an improved model that also includes ON–ON and OFF–OFF pairings. The predictive power of this model was tested in a series of four experiments, using a total of about 500 different center–ring–surround configurations as test stimuli. We found that, overall, our modified version accounts for more than 80% of the variance in the empirical luster judgments and that the former problems could be largely resolved. Our results further suggest a nonlinear transducer function for the binocular conflict signals.

Eye-specific attentional bias driven by selection history

Attention helps in selection among competing stimuli, but attentional selection also biases subsequent information processing as a prior experience. Previous studies have demonstrated that intertrial repetition of target features or locations facilitates perceptual processing as selection history guides attention. In the current study, we found that eye selection history in binocular rivalry induces eye-specific attentional bias. In four experiments, participants responded to the target presented at one of the locations on either eye. The results showed that the target was detected faster when presented to the same eye as in the previous trial under binocular rivalry. However, the effect of eye repetition was not observed when the interocular conflict was reduced by presenting stimuli to only one eye on each trial. Our result indicates that eye selection history can affect eye dominance during binocular rivalry as attention amplifies selected information among competing inputs. These findings suggest that prior experience of attentional deployment modulates subsequent information processing owing to the residual effect of attentional amplification.

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.

Binocular luster - A review

Binocular luster is a visual phenomenon that can be elicited by dichoptic stimuli showing an interocular difference in color or luminance contrast. For instance, when the two eyes are presented with simple center-surround stimuli in which the center patch in one eye is brighter and in the other eye darker than the common surround, the center patch in the fused percept assumes a lustrous appearance reminiscent of metal or graphite. Soon after the discovery of this phenomenon in the mid-19th century, it was intensively studied and several explanations were proposed. After this initial phase, however, research interest waned significantly. Stimulated by new insights into related phenomena and the underlying physiological mechanisms, the last 20 years have seen an increase in research activity in this field, which has considerably expanded our understanding of binocular luster. In this paper, we provide a detailed review of research on binocular luster over the past 170 years. We present and discuss the existing findings in a number of separate sections, dealing with 1) the phenomenology of binocular luster, 2) different theories that have been proposed, 3) several factors influencing the lustrous impression, 4) the relationship between binocular luster and binocular rivalry, 5) the current understanding of its neural basis, and 6) potential applications based on binocular luster.

Binocular fusion enhances the efficiency of spot-the-difference gameplay

Spot-the-difference, the popular childhood game and a prototypical change blindness task, involves identification of differences in local features of two otherwise identical scenes using an eye scanning and matching strategy. Through binocular fusion of the companion scenes, the game becomes a visual search task, wherein players can simply scan the cyclopean percept for local features that may distinctly stand-out due to binocular rivalry/lustre. Here, we had a total of 100 visually normal adult (18-28 years of age) volunteers play this game in the traditional non-fusion mode and after cross-fusion of the companion images using a hand-held mirror stereoscope. The results demonstrate that the fusion mode significantly speeds up gameplay and reduces errors, relative to the non-fusion mode, for a range of target sizes, contrasts, and chromaticity tested (all, p<0.001). Amongst the three types of local feature differences available in these images (polarity difference, presence/absence of a local feature difference and shape difference in a local feature difference), features containing polarity difference was identified as first in ~60-70% of instances in both modes of gameplay (p<0.01), with this proportion being larger in the fusion than in the non-fusion mode. The binocular fusion advantage is lost when the lustre cue is purposefully weakened through alterations in target luminance polarity. The spot-the-difference game may thus be cheated using binocular fusion and the differences readily identified through a vivid experience of binocular rivalry/lustre.

Reward produces learning of a consciously inaccessible feature

Reward has a significant impact on behaviour and perception. Most past work in associative reward learning has used perceptually distinct visual cues to associate with different reward values. Thus, it remains unknown to what extent the learned bias towards reward-associated stimuli depends on consciousness of the apparent differences between stimuli. Here, we resolved this issue by using an inter-ocular suppression paradigm with the monetary rewarding and non-rewarding cues identical to each other except for their eye-of-origin information. Thus, the reward coding system cannot rely on consciousness to select the reward-associated cue. Surprisingly, the targets in the rewarded eye broke into awareness faster than those in the non-rewarded eye. We further revealed that producing this effect required both top-down attention and inter-ocular suppression. These findings suggest that the human's reward coding system can produce two different types of reward-based learning. One is independent of consciousness yet fairly consuming attentional resources. The other one results from volitional selection of stimuli of behavioural significance.

On the Questionable Appeal of Glossy/Shiny Food Packaging

Those stimuli that have a shiny/glossy visual appearance are typically rated as both attractive and attention capturing. Indeed, for millennia, shiny precious metals and glossy lacquerware have been used to enhance the presentation, and thus the perception, of food and drink. As such, one might have expected that adding a shiny/glossy appearance/finish to the outer packaging of food and beverage products would also be desirable. However, the latest research appears to show that many consumers have internalised an association between glossy packaging and greasy (or unhealthy) food products, while matte packaging tends to be associated with those foods that are more natural instead. Furthermore, it turns out that many consumers do not necessarily appreciate the attempt to capture their attention that glossy packaging so often affords. At the same time, it is important to recognise that somewhat different associations may apply in the case of inner versus outer food and beverage packaging. Shiny metallic (inner) packaging may well prime (rightly or wrongly) concerns about sustainability amongst consumers. Given the research that has been published in recent years, food and beverage manufacturers/marketers should think very carefully about whether or not to introduce such shiny/glossy finishes to their packaging.

Adaptation to transients disrupts spatial coherence in binocular rivalry

When one eye is presented with an image that is distinct from the image presented to the other eye, the eyes start to rival and suppress each other's image. Binocular rivalry leads to perceptual alternations between the images of each eye, during which only one of the images is perceived at a time. However, when the eyes exert weak and shallow suppression, participants tend to perceive both images intermixed more often. A recent study proposed that the precedence of mixed percepts positively correlates with the degree of adaptation to conflict between the eyes. However, this study neglected the role of visual transients, which covaried with the degree of conflict in the stimulus design. Here we report that not the conflict between the eyes but prolonged and repeated observations of strong visual transients cause participants to report more mixed percepts. We conclude that visual transients, such as sudden changes in contrast, draw attention, strengthen both eyes' image representations, and facilitate the adaptation to interocular suppression, which consequentially disrupts the spatial coherence in binocular rivalry. This finding is relevant to virtual- and augmented reality for which it is crucial to design stereoscopic environments in which binocular rivalry is limited.

Hemispheric Asymmetries in Deaf and Hearing During Sustained Peripheral Selective Attention

Previous studies have shown that compared to hearing individuals, early deaf individuals allocate relatively more attention to the periphery than central visual field. However, it is not clear whether these two groups also differ in their ability to selectively attend to specific peripheral locations. We examined deaf and hearing participants' selective attention using electroencephalography (EEG) and a frequency tagging paradigm, in which participants attended to one of two peripheral displays of moving dots that changed directions at different rates. Both participant groups showed similar amplifications and reductions in the EEG signal at the attended and unattended frequencies, indicating similar control over their peripheral attention for motion stimuli. However, for deaf participants these effects were larger in a right hemispheric region of interest (ROI), while for hearing participants these effects were larger in a left ROI. These results contribute to a growing body of evidence for a right hemispheric processing advantage in deaf populations when attending to motion.

Deadeye Visualization Revisited: Investigation of Preattentiveness and Applicability in Virtual Environments

Visualizations rely on highlighting to attract and guide our attention. To make an object of interest stand out independently from a number of distractors, the underlying visual cue, e.g., color, has to be preattentive. In our prior work, we introduced Deadeye as an instantly recognizable highlighting technique that works by rendering the target object for one eye only. In contrast to prior approaches, Deadeye excels by not modifying any visual properties of the target. However, in the case of 2D visualizations, the method requires an additional setup to allow dichoptic presentation, which is a considerable drawback. As a follow-up to requests from the community, this paper explores Deadeye as a highlighting technique for 3D visualizations, because such stereoscopic scenarios support dichoptic presentation out of the box. Deadeye suppresses binocular disparities for the target object, so we cannot assume the applicability of our technique as a given fact. With this motivation, the paper presents quantitative evaluations of Deadeye in VR, including configurations with multiple heterogeneous distractors as an important robustness challenge. After confirming the preserved preattentiveness (all average accuracies above 90%) under such real-world conditions, we explore VR volume rendering as an example application scenario for Deadeye. We depict a possible workflow for integrating our technique, conduct an exploratory survey to demonstrate benefits and limitations, and finally provide related design implications.

At least two distinct mechanisms control binocular luster, rivalry, and perceived rotation with contrast and average luminance disparities

When one views a square-wave grating and dichoptically changes the average luminance or contrast of the monocular images, at least three perceptual phenomena might occur. These are the Venetian blind effect, or a perceived rotation of the bars around individual vertical axes; binocular luster, or a perceived shimmering; and binocular rivalry, or an alternating perception between the views of the two eyes. Perception of luster and rivalry occur when the "light bars" in the grating dichoptically straddle the background luminance (one eye's image has a higher luminance than the background and the other eye's image has a lower luminance than the background), with little impact from the "dark bars." Perception of rotation, on the other hand, is related to average luminance or contrast disparity, independent of whether or not the "light bars" straddle the background luminance. The patterns for perceived rotation versus binocular luster and binocular rivalry suggest at least two separate mechanisms in the visual system for processing luminance and contrast information over and above their differing physiological states suggested by their different appearances. While luster and rivalry depend directly on the relation between stimuli and the background, perceived rotation depends on the magnitude of the luminance or contrast disparity, as described by the generalized difference model.

Effect of Visual Attention on Binocular Fusion Limits

We examined the effect of visual attention on binocular fusion limits by using Posner's spatial cueing paradigm that entails cued shifts of attentional focus. Results showed that attention decreases the fusion limit. Observers perceived diplopia of a binocular line within +/-26.5 arcmin disparity (+/- correspond to uncrossed and crossed, respectively) more frequently when it was oriented to the line than when cued attention was directed elsewhere. We discuss the results in terms of attention increasing spatial resolution and contrast sensitivity.

Deadeye: A Novel Preattentive Visualization Technique Based on Dichoptic Presentation

Preattentive visual features such as hue or flickering can effectively draw attention to an object of interest - for instance, an important feature in a scientific visualization. These features appear to pop out and can be recognized by our visual system, independently from the number of distractors. Most cues do not take advantage of the fact that most humans have two eyes. In cases where binocular vision is applied, it is almost exclusively used to convey depth by exposing stereo pairs. We present Deadeye, a novel preattentive visualization technique based on presenting different stimuli to each eye. The target object is rendered for one eye only and is instantly detected by our visual system. In contrast to existing cues, Deadeye does not modify any visual properties of the target and, thus, is particularly suited for visualization applications. Our evaluation confirms that Deadeye is indeed perceived preattentively. We also explore a conjunction search based on our technique and show that, in contrast to 3D depth, the task cannot be processed in parallel.

Ocularity Feature Contrast Attracts Attention Exogenously

An eye-of-origin singleton, e.g., a bar shown to the left eye among many other bars shown to the right eye, can capture attention and gaze exogenously or reflexively, even when it appears identical to other visual input items in the scene and when the eye-of-origin feature is irrelevant to the observer’s task. Defining saliency as the strength of exogenous attraction to attention, we say that this eye-of-origin singleton, or its visual location, is salient. Defining the ocularity of a visual input item as the relative difference between its left-eye input and its right-eye input, this paper shows the general case that an ocularity singleton is also salient. For example, a binocular input item among monocular input items is salient, so is a left-eye-dominant input item (e.g., a bar with a higher input contrast to the left eye than to the right eye) among right-eye-dominant items. Saliency by unique input ocularity is analogous to saliency by unique input colour (e.g., a red item among green ones), as colour is determined by the relative difference(s) between visual inputs to different photoreceptor cones. Just as a smaller colour difference between a colour singleton and background items makes this singleton less salient, so does a smaller ocularity difference between an ocularity singleton and background items. While a salient colour difference is highly visible, a salient ocularity difference is often perceptually invisible in some cases and discouraging gaze shifts towards it in other cases, making its behavioural manifestation not as apparent. Saliency by ocularity contrast provides another support to the idea that the primary visual cortex creates a bottom-up saliency map to guide attention exogenously.

Conflict-sensitive neurons gate interocular suppression in human visual cortex

Neural suppression plays an important role in cortical function, including sensory, memory, and motor systems. It remains, however, relatively poorly understood. A paradigmatic case arises when conflicting images are presented to the two eyes. These images can compete for awareness, and one is usually strongly suppressed. The mechanisms that resolve such interocular conflict remain unclear. Suppression could arise solely from “winner-take-all” competition between neurons responsive to each eye. Alternatively, suppression could also depend upon neurons detecting interocular conflict. Here, we provide physiological evidence in human visual cortex for the latter: suppression depends upon conflict-sensitive neurons. We recorded steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEP), and used the logic of selective adaptation. The amplitude of SSVEP responses at intermodulation frequencies strengthened as interocular conflict in the stimulus increased, suggesting the presence of neurons responsive to conflict. Critically, adaptation to conflict both reduced this SSVEP effect, and increased the amount of conflict needed to produce perceptual suppression. The simplest account of these results is that interocular-conflict-sensitive neurons exist in human cortex: adaptation likely reduced the responsiveness of these neurons which in turn raised the amount of conflict required to produce perceptual suppression. Similar mechanisms may be used to resolve other varieties of perceptual conflict.

Binocularity and visual search-Revisited

Binocular rivalry is a phenomenon of visual competition in which perception alternates between two monocular images. When two eye's images only differ in luminance, observers may perceive shininess, a form of rivalry called binocular luster. Does dichoptic information guide attention in visual search? Wolfe and Franzel (Perception & Psychophysics, 44(1), 81-93, 1988) reported that rivalry could guide attention only weakly, but that luster (shininess) "popped out," producing very shallow Reaction Time (RT) × Set Size functions. In this study, we have revisited the topic with new and improved stimuli. By using a checkerboard pattern in rivalry experiments, we found that search for rivalry can be more efficient (16 ms/item) than standard, rivalrous grating (30 ms/item). The checkerboard may reduce distracting orientation signals that masked the salience of rivalry between simple orthogonal gratings. Lustrous stimuli did not pop out when potential contrast and luminance artifacts were reduced. However, search efficiency was substantially improved when luster was added to the search target. Both rivalry and luster tasks can produce search asymmetries, as is characteristic of guiding features in search. These results suggest that interocular differences that produce rivalry or luster can guide attention, but these effects are relatively weak and can be hidden by other features like luminance and orientation in visual search tasks.

Five Factors that Guide Attention in Visual Search

How do we find what we are looking for? Fundamental limits on visual processing mean that even when the desired target is in our field of view, we often need to search, because it is impossible to recognize everything at once. Searching involves directing attention to objects that might be the target. This deployment of attention is not random. It is guided to the most promising items and locations by five factors discussed here: Bottom-up salience, top-down feature guidance, scene structure and meaning, the previous history of search over time scales from msec to years, and the relative value of the targets and distractors. Modern theories of search need to specify how all five factors combine to shape search behavior. An understanding of the rules of guidance can be used to improve the accuracy and efficiency of socially-important search tasks, from security screening to medical image perception.

Contrast and lustre: A model that accounts for eleven different forms of contrast discrimination in binocular vision

Our goal here is a more complete understanding of how information about luminance contrast is encoded and used by the binocular visual system. In two-interval forced-choice experiments we assessed observers' ability to discriminate changes in contrast that could be an increase or decrease of contrast in one or both eyes, or an increase in one eye coupled with a decrease in the other (termed IncDec). The base or pedestal contrasts were either in-phase or out-of-phase in the two eyes. The opposed changes in the IncDec condition did not cancel each other out, implying that along with binocular summation, information is also available from mechanisms that do not sum the two eyes' inputs. These might be monocular mechanisms. With a binocular pedestal, monocular increments of contrast were much easier to see than monocular decrements. These findings suggest that there are separate binocular (B) and monocular (L,R) channels, but only the largest of the three responses, max(L,B,R), is available to perception and decision. Results from contrast discrimination and contrast matching tasks were described very accurately by this model. Stimuli, data, and model responses can all be visualized in a common binocular contrast space, allowing a more direct comparison between models and data. Some results with out-of-phase pedestals were not accounted for by the max model of contrast coding, but were well explained by an extended model in which gratings of opposite polarity create the sensation of lustre. Observers can discriminate changes in lustre alongside changes in contrast.

'Proto-rivalry': how the binocular brain identifies gloss

Visually identifying glossy surfaces can be crucial for survival (e.g. ice patches on a road), yet estimating gloss is computationally challenging for both human and machine vision. Here, we demonstrate that human gloss perception exploits some surprisingly simple binocular fusion signals, which are likely available early in the visual cortex. In particular, we show that the unusual disparity gradients and vertical offsets produced by reflections create distinctive ‘proto-rivalrous’ (barely fusible) image regions that are a critical indicator of gloss. We find that manipulating the gradients and vertical components of binocular disparities yields predictable changes in material appearance. Removing or occluding proto-rivalrous signals makes surfaces look matte, while artificially adding such signals to images makes them appear glossy. This suggests that the human visual system has internalized the idiosyncratic binocular fusion characteristics of glossy surfaces, providing a straightforward means of estimating surface attributes using low-level image signals.

Deconstructing Interocular Suppression: Attention and Divisive Normalization

In interocular suppression, a suprathreshold monocular target can be rendered invisible by a salient competitor stimulus presented in the other eye. Despite decades of research on interocular suppression and related phenomena (e.g., binocular rivalry, flash suppression, continuous flash suppression), the neural processing underlying interocular suppression is still unknown. We developed and tested a computational model of interocular suppression. The model included two processes that contributed to the strength of interocular suppression: divisive normalization and attentional modulation. According to the model, the salient competitor induced a stimulus-driven attentional modulation selective for the location and orientation of the competitor, thereby increasing the gain of neural responses to the competitor and reducing the gain of neural responses to the target. Additional suppression was induced by divisive normalization in the model, similar to other forms of visual masking. To test the model, we conducted psychophysics experiments in which both the size and the eye-of-origin of the competitor were manipulated. For small and medium competitors, behavioral performance was consonant with a change in the response gain of neurons that responded to the target. But large competitors induced a contrast-gain change, even when the competitor was split between the two eyes. The model correctly predicted these results and outperformed an alternative model in which the attentional modulation was eye specific. We conclude that both stimulus-driven attention (selective for location and feature) and divisive normalization contribute to interocular suppression.

In interocular suppression, a visible target presented in one eye can be rendered invisible by a competing image (the competitor) presented in the other eye. This phenomenon is a striking demonstration of the discrepancy between physical inputs to the visual system and perception, and it also allows neuroscientists to study how perceptual systems regulate competing information. Interocular suppression has been explained by mutually suppressive interactions (modeled by divisive normalization) between neurons that respond differentially to the two eyes. Attention, which selects relevant information in natural viewing condition, has also been found to play a role in interocular suppression. But the specific role of attentional modulation is still an open question. In this study, we proposed a computational model of interocular suppression integrating both attentional modulation and divisive normalization. By modeling the hypothetical neural responses and fitting the model to psychophysical data, we showed that interocular suppression involves an attentional modulation selective for the orientation of the competitor, and covering the spatial extent of the competitor. We conclude that both attention and divisive normalization contribute to interocular suppression, and that their impacts are distinguishable.

Guided Search 2.0 A revised model of visual search

An important component of routine visual behavior is the ability to find one item in a visual world filled with other, distracting items. This ability to performvisual search has been the subject of a large body of research in the past 15 years. This paper reviews the visual search literature and presents a model of human search behavior. Built upon the work of Neisser, Treisman, Julesz, and others, the model distinguishes between a preattentive, massively parallel stage that processes information about basic visual features (color, motion, various depth cues, etc.) across large portions of the visual field and a subsequent limited-capacity stage that performs other, more complex operations (e.g., face recognition, reading, object identification) over a limited portion of the visual field. The spatial deployment of the limited-capacity process is under attentional control. The heart of the guided search model is the idea that attentional deployment of limited resources isguided by the output of the earlier parallel processes. Guided Search 2.0 (GS2) is a revision of the model in which virtually all aspects of the model have been made more explicit and/or revised in light of new data. The paper is organized into four parts: Part 1 presents the model and the details of its computer simulation. Part 2 reviews the visual search literature on preattentive processing of basic features and shows how the GS2 simulation reproduces those results. Part 3 reviews the literature on the attentional deployment of limited-capacity processes in conjunction and serial searches and shows how the simulation handles those conditions. Finally, Part 4 deals with shortcomings of the model and unresolved issues.

Can eye of origin serve as a deviant? Visual mismatch negativity from binocular rivalry

The visual mismatch negativity (vMMN) is a negative deflection in an event-related potential (ERP) between 200 and 400 ms after onset of an infrequent stimulus in a sequence of frequent stimuli. Binocular rivalry occurs when one image is presented to one eye and a different image is presented to the other. Although the images in the two eyes are unchanging, perception alternates unpredictably between the two images for as long as one cares to look. Binocular rivalry, therefore, provides a useful test of whether the vMMN is produced by low levels of the visual system at which the images are processed, or by higher levels at which perception is mediated. To investigate whether a vMMN can be evoked during binocular rivalry, we showed 80% standards comprising a vertical grating to one eye and a horizontal grating to the other and 20% deviants, in which the gratings either swapped between the eyes (eye-swap deviants) or changed their orientations by 45° (oblique deviants). Fourteen participants observed the stimuli in 16, 4-min blocks. In eight consecutive blocks, participants recorded their experiences of rivalry by pressing keys-we call this the attend-to-rivalry condition. In the remaining eight consecutive blocks, participants performed a demanding task at fixation (a 2-back task), also by pressing keys-we call this the reduced-attention condition. We found deviance-related negativity from about 140 ms to about 220 ms after onset of a deviant. There were two noticeable troughs that we call an early vMMN (140-160 ms) and a late vMMN (200-220 ms). These were essentially similar for oblique deviants and eye-swap deviants. They were also essentially similar in the attend-to-rivalry conditions and the reduced-attention conditions. We also found a late, deviance-related negativity from about 270 to about 290 ms in the attend-to-rivalry conditions. We conclude that the vMMN can be evoked during the ever-changing perceptual changes of binocular rivalry and that it is sensitive to the eye of origin of binocular-rivalry stimuli. This is consistent with the vMMN's being produced by low levels of the visual system.

Interocular conflict attracts attention

During binocular rivalry, perception alternates.between dissimilar images presented dichoptically. Since.its discovery, researchers have debated whether the phenomenon is subject to attentional control. While it is now clear that attentional control over binocular rivalry is possible, the opposite is less evident: Is interocular conflict (i.e., the situation leading to binocular rivalry) able to attract attention?In order to answer this question, we used a change blindness paradigm in which observers looked for salient changes in two alternating frames depicting natural scenes. Each frame contained two images: one for the left and one for the right eye. Changes occurring in a single image (monocular) were detected faster than those occurring in both images (binocular). In addition,monocular change detection was also faster than detection in fused versions of the changed and unchanged regions. These results show that interocular conflict is capable of attracting attention, since it guides visual attention toward salient changes that otherwise would remain unnoticed for longer. The results of a second experiment indicated that interocular conflict attracts attention during the first phase of presentation, a phase during which the stimulus is abnormally fused [added].

Attention and visual memory in visualization and computer graphics

A fundamental goal of visualization is to produce images of data that support visual analysis, exploration, and discovery of novel insights. An important consideration during visualization design is the role of human visual perception. How we "see" details in an image can directly impact a viewer's efficiency and effectiveness. This paper surveys research on attention and visual perception, with a specific focus on results that have direct relevance to visualization and visual analytics. We discuss theories of low-level visual perception, then show how these findings form a foundation for more recent work on visual memory and visual attention. We conclude with a brief overview of how knowledge of visual attention and visual memory is being applied in visualization and graphics. We also discuss how challenges in visualization are motivating research in psychophysics.

Neural activities in v1 create a bottom-up saliency map

The bottom-up contribution to the allocation of exogenous attention is a saliency map, whose neural substrate is hard to identify because of possible contamination by top-down signals. We obviated this possibility using stimuli that observers could not perceive, but that nevertheless, through orientation contrast between foreground and background regions, attracted attention to improve a localized visual discrimination. When orientation contrast increased, so did the degree of attraction, and two physiological measures: the amplitude of the earliest (C1) component of the ERP, which is associated with primary visual cortex, and fMRI BOLD signals in areas V1-V4 (but not the intraparietal sulcus). Significantly, across observers, the degree of attraction correlated with the C1 amplitude and just the V1 BOLD signal. These findings strongly support the proposal that a bottom-up saliency map is created in V1, challenging the dominant view that the saliency map is generated in the parietal cortex.

Voluntary Attention Modulates Processing of Eye-Specific Visual Information

Visual attention functions to select relevant information from a vast amount of visual input that is available for further processing. Information from the two eyes is processed separately in early stages before converging and giving rise to a coherent percept. Observers normally cannot access eye-of-origin information. In the research reported here, we demonstrated that voluntary attention can be eye-specific, modulating visual processing within a specific monocular channel. Using a modified binocular-rivalry paradigm, we found that attending to a monocular cue while remaining oblivious to its eye of origin significantly enhanced the competition strength of a stimulus presented to the cued eye, even when the stimulus was suppressed from consciousness. Furthermore, this eye-specific attentional effect was insensitive to low-level properties of the cue (e.g., size and contrast) but sensitive to the attentional load. Together, these findings suggest that top-down attention can have a significant modulation effect at the eye-specific stage of visual information processing.

Attentional modulation of binocular rivalry

Ever since Wheatstone initiated the scientific study of binocular rivalry, it has been debated whether the phenomenon is under attentional control. In recent years, the issue of attentional modulation of binocular rivalry has seen a revival. Here we review the classical studies as well as recent advances in the study of attentional modulation of binocular rivalry. We show that (1) voluntary control over binocular rivalry is possible, yet limited, (2) both endogenous and exogenous attention influence perceptual dominance during rivalry, (3) diverting attention from rival displays does not arrest perceptual alternations, and that (4) rival targets by themselves can also attract attention. From a theoretical perspective, we suggest that attention affects binocular rivalry by modulating the effective contrast of the images in competition. This contrast enhancing effect of top-down attention is counteracted by a response attenuating effect of neural adaptation at early levels of visual processing, which weakens the response to the dominant image. Moreover, we conclude that although frontal and parietal brain areas involved in both binocular rivalry and visual attention overlap, an adapting reciprocal inhibition arrangement at early visual cortex is sufficient to trigger switches in perceptual dominance independently of a higher-level "selection" mechanisms. Both of these processes are reciprocal and therefore self-balancing, with the consequence that complete attentional control over binocular rivalry can never be realized.

A search asymmetry for interocular conflict

When two different images are presented to the two eyes, the percept will alternate between the images (a phenomenon called binocular rivalry). In the present study, we investigate the degree to which such interocular conflict is conspicuous. By using a visual search task, we show that search for interocular conflict is near efficient (15 ms/item) and can lead to a search asymmetry, depending on the contrast in the display. We reconcile our findings with those of Wolfe and Franzel (1988), who reported inefficient search for interocular conflict (26 ms/item) and found no evidence for a search asymmetry. In addition, we provide evidence for the suggestion that differences in search for interocular conflict are contingent on the degree of abnormal fusion of the dissimilar images.

Functional specialization in the lower and upper visual fields in humans: Its ecological origins and neurophysiological implications

Functional specialization in the lower and upper visual fields in humans is analyzed in relation to the origins of the primate visual system. Processing differences between the vertical hemifields are related to the distinction between near (peripersonal) and far (extrapersonal) space, which are biased toward the lower and upper visual fields, respectively. Nonlinear/global processing is required in the lower visual field in order to pergeive the optically degraded and diplopic images in near vision, whereas objects in far vision are searched for and recognized primarily using linear/local perceptual mechanisms. The functional differences between near and far visual space are correlated with their disproportionate representations in the dorsal and ventral divisions of visual association cortex, respectively, and in the magnocellular and parvocellular pathways that project to them. Advances in far visual capabilities and forelimb manipulatory skills may have led to a significant enhancement of these functional specializations.

The psychophysics of detecting binocular discrepancies of luminance

In the natural world, a binocular discrepancy of luminance can signal a glossy surface. Using a spatial forced choice task, we have measured the ability of subjects to detect binocular luminance disparities. We show that the detection of binocular luminance disparity shares several basic psychophysical features with the detection of surface properties such as lightness and chromaticity: an approximation to Weber's Law, spatial summation, temporal summation, and a deterioration with increasing eccentricity. We also discuss whether color-deficient subjects could derive reliable information about chromaticity from the binocular disparities of luminance induced by a monocularly worn color filter.

Eye dominance effects in conjunction search

We previously found a dominant eye perceptional advantage in feature search (Vision Research, 2006). We now ask if this advantage extends to difficult conjunction search, which requires focused attention and depends on different cortical hierarchy levels. We determined eye dominance by the Hole-in-the-Card test. Using red-green glasses, subjects viewed a briefly presented, backward-masked, array of red/green dotted squares and filled circles. On half of the trials a filled square target replaced one dotted square. There was significantly better performance when the target was seen by the dominant eye, suggesting its visual processing priority in slow, as in rapid search, perhaps including augmented attention to dominant eye representations. Binocular conjunction targets were found faster than monocular targets, though binocularity--as utrocular information--was insufficient to support reasonable detection levels.

The role of perceptual learning on modality-specific visual attentional effects

Morrone et al. [Morrone, M. C., Denti, V., & Spinelli, D. (2002). Color and luminance contrasts attract independent attention. Current Biology, 12, 1134-1137] reported that the detrimental effect on contrast discrimination thresholds of performing a concomitant task is modality specific: performing a secondary luminance task has no effect on colour contrast thresholds, and vice versa. Here we confirm this result with a novel task involving learning of spatial position, and go on to show that it is not specific to the cardinal colour axes: secondary tasks with red-green stimuli impede performance on a blue-yellow task and vice versa. We further show that the attentional effect can be abolished with continued training over 2-4 training days (2-20 training sessions), and that the effect of learning is transferable to new target positions. Given the finding of transference, we discuss the possibility that V4 is a site of plasticity for both stimulus types, and that the separation is due to a luminance-colour separation within this cortical area.

Eye dominance effects in feature search

We studied the role of eye dominance in non-rivalry conditions, testing dichoptic visual search and comparing performance with target presented to the dominant or non-dominant eye. Using red-green glasses, subjects viewed an array of green and red lines of uniform orientation, with a differently oriented target line present on half the trials. Performance was significantly better when the dominant eye saw the target, especially when the opposite eye saw the distractors. This effect was reduced when only nearest-neighbor surrounding distractors were homogeneous. We conclude that the dominant eye has priority in visual processing, perhaps including inhibition of non-dominant eye representations.

Monocular texture segmentation and proto-rivalry

When the right eye's target is the left eye's distracter and vice versa, orientation-defined search is impossible unless, as we show here, the elements are close together. More than 1s was required to find inverse-cyclopean texture boundaries when elements were arranged on a 16 x 16 grid. Less than 250 ms was required for a 24 x 24 grid covering the same area. The conventional view is that binocular rivalry requires at least 200 ms to develop, but our results suggest a more rapid access to monocular signals. We call this rapid form of access "proto-rivalry."

Greater depth seen with phantom stereopsis is coded at the early stages of visual processing

A visual search task was used to investigate the spatially parallel coding of depth from binocular disparity and from binocularly unmatched features. Experiment 1, using disparity noise, showed that detectability is higher for illusory phantom targets defined by unmatched features than for disparity-defined targets, although the two targets were equated as to theoretically minimum depth. Experiment 2, using binocularly unmatched noise whose width was equal to the disparity of the noise used in Experiment 1, showed that noise severely interferes with the detection of both the disparity and the phantom targets. These results are consistent with the idea that the greater depth seen with phantom stereopsis is coded at the early stages of visual processing.

Local and non-local deficits in amblyopia: acuity and spatial interactions

Amblyopic vision is thought to be limited by abnormal long-range spatial interactions, but their exact mode of action and relationship to the main amblyopic deficit in visual acuity is largely unknown. We studied this relationship in a group (N=59) of anisometropic (N=21) and strabismic (or combined, N=38) subjects, using (1) a single and multi-pattern (crowded) computerized static Tumbling-E test with scaled spacing of two pattern widths (TeVA), in addition to an optotype (ETDRS chart) acuity test (VA) and (2) contrast detection of Gabor patches with lateral flankers (lateral masking) along the horizontal and vertical axes as well as in collinear and parallel configurations. By correlating the different measures of visual acuity and contrast suppression, we found that (1) the VA of the strabismic subjects could be decomposed into two uncorrelated components measured in TeVA: acuity for isolated patterns and acuity reduction due to flanking patterns. The latter comprised over 60% of the VA magnitude, on the average and accounted for over 50% of its variance. In contrast, a slight reduction in acuity was found in the anisometropic subjects, and the acuity for a single pattern could account for 70% of the VA variance. (2) The lateral suppression (contrast threshold elevation) in a parallel configuration along the horizontal axis was correlated with the VA (R2=0.7), as well as with the crowding effect (TeVA elevation, R2=0.5) for the strabismic group. Some correlation with the VA was also found for the collinear configuration in the anisometropic group, but less suppression and no correlation were found for all the vertical configurations in all the groups. The results indicate the existence of a specific non-local component of the strabismic deficit, in addition to the local acuity deficit in all amblyopia types. This deficit might reflect long-range lateral inhibition, or alternatively, an inaccurate and scattered top-down attentional selection mechanism.