June 2004
Volume 4, Issue 8
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   August 2004
Binocular rivalry suppression does impede buildup of the motion aftereffect.
Author Affiliations
  • Kenith V. Sobel
    Victoria University Wellington, New Zealand
  • Randolph Blake
    Vanderbilt Vision Research Center, USA
  • Tony A. Raissian
    Vanderbilt Vision Research Center, USA
Journal of Vision August 2004, Vol.4, 243. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/4.8.243
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Kenith V. Sobel, Randolph Blake, Tony A. Raissian; Binocular rivalry suppression does impede buildup of the motion aftereffect.. Journal of Vision 2004;4(8):243. https://doi.org/10.1167/4.8.243.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

PURPOSE: Does binocular rivalry suppression interfere with build-up of the translational motion aftereffect (MAE)? Earlier work said “no” but we have re-examined the question taking into account the contrast-dependence of the MAE. METHODS AND RESULTS: After adapting to a drifting sinusoidal grating presented to one eye, a subsequently presented stationary grating appeared to drift slowly in the opposite direction. Observers indicated the duration of the MAE by pressing a key when the stationary grating ceased to generate illusory motion. For each of 4 observers, a contrast response curve was constructed from the mean MAE durations across varying levels of adapting contrast. Next, observers adapted with one eye to a drifting grating while, at the same time, the other eye viewed a high contrast, flickering radial checkerboard. The checkerboard was sufficiently dissimilar to trigger binocular rivalry, and sufficiently strong to suppress the drifting grating from visual awareness for most of the adaptation period. MAE duration was unaffected when the contrast of the adapting grating was high, replicating previous results. However, when the contrast of the adapting grating was lower, rivalry suppression did reduce the magnitude of the MAE and completely abolished it when adaptation contrast was very low. Results from adaptation regimes that mimicked rivalry alternations imply that suppression effectively reduces grating contrast by 0.5 log-units, a reduction too small to affect adaptation at high contrasts where the MAE is presumably near saturation. A similar overall pattern of results was obtained using a counterphase flickering test grating that putatively isolates the dynamic MAE. CONCLUSION: Evidently, neural events underlying rivalry suppression are initiated at an early site in visual processing, prior to those responsible for adaptation to translational motion. This conclusion does not rule out amplification of suppression at higher stages of visual processing.

EY13924 and EY13358

Sobel, K. V., Blake, R., Raissian, T. A.(2004). Binocular rivalry suppression does impede buildup of the motion aftereffect[Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 4( 8): 243, 243a, http://journalofvision.org/4/8/243/, doi:10.1167/4.8.243. [CrossRef]

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.