December 2010
Volume 10, Issue 15
Free
OSA Fall Vision Meeting Abstract  |   December 2010
The neural correlates of two forms of bistability: a comparison of binocular and monocular rivalry with fMRI
Author Affiliations
  • Athena Buckthought
    The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Samuel Jessula
    McGill Vision Research Unit, Department of Ophthalmology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  • Janine D. Mendola
    McGill Vision Research Unit, Department of Ophthalmology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Journal of Vision December 2010, Vol.10, 20. doi:10.1167/10.15.20
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Athena Buckthought, Samuel Jessula, Janine D. Mendola; The neural correlates of two forms of bistability: a comparison of binocular and monocular rivalry with fMRI. Journal of Vision 2010;10(15):20. doi: 10.1167/10.15.20.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

The neural correlates of binocular rivalry are of considerable interest as they may shed light on mechanisms of conscious awareness. In a related phenomenon, monocular rivalry, a composite image is shown to both eyes. The subject experiences perceptual alternations in which the two stimulus components alternate in salience. The experience is similar to perceptual alternations in binocular rivalry, although the reduction in visibility of the suppressed component is greater for binocular rivalry, especially at higher stimulus contrasts (O'Shea et al., 2009). We used fMRI at 3T to image activity in visual cortex while subjects perceived either monocular or binocular rivalry. The stimulus patterns were left/right oblique gratings with luminance contrasts of 9%, 18% or 36%. Remarkably, both binocular and monocular rivalry showed a U-shaped function of activation as a function of contrast, i.e. higher activity for most areas at 9% and 36%. The increased activation at higher contrast can be explained by neuronal response gain reflected in faster alternation rates, while that at low contrast can be explained by disinhibition (Wilson, 2007). The cortical activation for monocular rivalry included occipital pole (V1, V2, V3), ventral temporal, and superior parietal cortex. The additional areas for binocular rivalry included area V3A, lateral occipital areas (including MT+), and inferior parietal cortex, including temporoparietal junction (TPJ). The activation in V2 and V3 was reduced for binocular compared to monocular rivalry at the higher contrasts that evoked stronger binocular perceptual suppression, indicating that the effects of suppression are not limited to interocular suppression in V1.

Acknowledgments
Supported by NSERC and NIH R01 EY015219 grants, and a LOF grant from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. 
References
Wilson, H. R.(2007). Minimal physiological conditions for binocular rivalry and rivalry memory. Vision Research, 47, 2741–2750. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
O'Shea, R. P., Parker, A., La Rooy, D., Alais, D.(2009). Monocular rivalry exhibits three hallmarks of binocular rivalry: Evidence for common processes. Vision Research, 49, 671–681. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×