August 2012
Volume 12, Issue 9
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   August 2012
What next? Binocular rivalry is biased by motion direction but not motion pattern
Author Affiliations
  • Mouna Attarha
    University of Iowa
  • Cathleen M. Moore
    University of Iowa
Journal of Vision August 2012, Vol.12, 205. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Mouna Attarha, Cathleen M. Moore; What next? Binocular rivalry is biased by motion direction but not motion pattern. Journal of Vision 2012;12(9):205.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Dichoptically presented orthogonal gratings compete for perceptual dominance causing the perception of alternating orientations, with each dominating approximately equally often (binocular rivalry). We explored whether binocular rivalry can be biased by preceding the rivalrous display with a predictive context. Observers saw sequences of gratings (presented to both eyes) that either rotated back and forth between two orientations (smooth motion) or rotated from one orientation to another before abruptly returning to the original orientation and continuing in the original direction (pattern motion). Rivalrous displays were presented at the point in the sequence at which the two conditions differed. That is when the grating would either begin to reverse direction (smooth motion) or would return to the original orientation (pattern motion). The rivalrous displays consisted of orthogonal gratings, one that was the next step of the smooth-motion sequence and one that was the next step in the pattern-motion sequence. Observers continuously reported which of the two gratings they perceived. In a control condition in which no sequence of gratings preceded the rivalrous display, the two orientations dominated equally often. In contrast, when there was a biasing sequence, the orientation that was consistent with the next step predicted by the smooth-motion sequence dominated. Critically, this was true regardless of which biasing sequence preceded the rivalrous display. We are exploring whether this bias is attributable to an influence of motion signals on binocular rivalry or an influence of the proximity of recent stimuli. In either case, the results indicate that binocular rivalry was biased by lower-order information (i.e., next step of motion or proximity) but not by higher-order pattern information in the sequence.

Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012


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.