schliessen

Filtern

 

Bibliotheken

A monocular contribution to stimulus rivalry

When corresponding areas of the two eyes view dissimilar images, stable perception gives way to visual competition wherein perceptual awareness alternates between those images. Moreover, a given image can remain visually dominant for several seconds at a time even when the competing images are swapp... Full description

Journal Title: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 05/21/2013, Vol.110(21), pp.8337-8344
Main Author: Brascamp, J.
Other Authors: Sohn, H. , Lee, S.-H. , Blake, R.
Format: Electronic Article Electronic Article
Language: English
Subjects:
ID: ISSN: 0027-8424 ; E-ISSN: 1091-6490 ; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1305393110
Zum Text:
SendSend as email Add to Book BagAdd to Book Bag
Staff View
recordid: crossref10.1073/pnas.1305393110
title: A monocular contribution to stimulus rivalry
format: Article
creator:
  • Brascamp, J.
  • Sohn, H.
  • Lee, S.-H.
  • Blake, R.
subjects:
  • Sciences (General)
ispartof: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 05/21/2013, Vol.110(21), pp.8337-8344
description: When corresponding areas of the two eyes view dissimilar images, stable perception gives way to visual competition wherein perceptual awareness alternates between those images. Moreover, a given image can remain visually dominant for several seconds at a time even when the competing images are swapped between the eyes multiple times each second. This perceptual stability across eye swaps has led to the widespread belief that this unique form of visual competition, dubbed stimulus rivalry, is governed by eye-independent neural processes at a purely binocular stage of cortical processing. We tested this idea by investigating the influence of stimulus rivalry on the buildup of the threshold elevation aftereffect, a form of contrast adaptation thought to transpire at early cortical stages that include eye-specific neural activity. Weaker threshold elevation aftereffects were observed when the adapting image was engaged in stimulus rivalry than when it was not, indicating diminished buildup of adaptation during stimulus-rivalry suppression. We then confirmed that this reduction occurred, in part, at eye-specific neural stages by showing that suppression of an image at a given moment specifically diminished adaptation associated with the eye viewing the image at that moment. Considered together, these results imply that eye-specific neural events at early cortical processing stages contribute to stimulus rivalry. We have developed a computational model of stimulus rivalry that successfully implements this idea.
language: eng
source:
identifier: ISSN: 0027-8424 ; E-ISSN: 1091-6490 ; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1305393110
fulltext: fulltext
issn:
  • 00278424
  • 0027-8424
  • 10916490
  • 1091-6490
url: Link


@attributes
ID1342395919
RANK0.07
NO1
SEARCH_ENGINEprimo_central_multiple_fe
SEARCH_ENGINE_TYPEPrimo Central Search Engine
LOCALfalse
PrimoNMBib
record
control
sourcerecordid10.1073/pnas.1305393110
sourceidcrossref
recordidTN_crossref10.1073/pnas.1305393110
sourceformatXML
sourcesystemPC
pqid1354792433
galeid333741787
display
typearticle
titleA monocular contribution to stimulus rivalry
creatorBrascamp, J. ; Sohn, H. ; Lee, S.-H. ; Blake, R.
ispartofProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 05/21/2013, Vol.110(21), pp.8337-8344
identifier
languageeng
source
lds4120130521
description

When corresponding areas of the two eyes view dissimilar images, stable perception gives way to visual competition wherein perceptual awareness alternates between those images. Moreover, a given image can remain visually dominant for several seconds at a time even when the competing images are swapped between the eyes multiple times each second. This perceptual stability across eye swaps has led to the widespread belief that this unique form of visual competition, dubbed stimulus rivalry, is governed by eye-independent neural processes at a purely binocular stage of cortical processing. We tested this idea by investigating the influence of stimulus rivalry on the buildup of the threshold elevation aftereffect, a form of contrast adaptation thought to transpire at early cortical stages that include eye-specific neural activity. Weaker threshold elevation aftereffects were observed when the adapting image was engaged in stimulus rivalry than when it was not, indicating diminished buildup of adaptation during stimulus-rivalry suppression. We then confirmed that this reduction occurred, in part, at eye-specific neural stages by showing that suppression of an image at a given moment specifically diminished adaptation associated with the eye viewing the image at that moment. Considered together, these results imply that eye-specific neural events at early cortical processing stages contribute to stimulus rivalry. We have developed a computational model of stimulus rivalry that successfully implements this idea.

subjectSciences (General);
version9
lds50peer_reviewed
links
openurl$$Topenurl_article
thumbnail
0$$TPCamazon_thumb
1$$TPCgoogle_thumb
openurlfulltext$$Topenurlfull_article
addlink$$Uhttp://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/aboutCrossref.html$$EView_CrossRef_copyright_notice
search
creatorcontrib
0Brascamp, J.
1Sohn, H.
2Lee, S.-H.
3Blake, R.
titleA monocular contribution to stimulus rivalry
general
0English
110.1073/pnas.1305393110
2CrossRef
sourceidcrossref
recordidcrossref10.1073/pnas.1305393110
issn
000278424
10027-8424
210916490
31091-6490
rsrctypearticle
addtitleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
searchscope
0crossref_rest
1CrossRef
2Crossref
3crossref
scope
0crossref_rest
1CrossRef
2Crossref
3crossref
lsr402013201305052121
lsr4120130521
lsr4220130521
lsr4320130521
lsr442013
lsr452013201304052221
tmp012
tmp022
creationdate2013
startdate20130521
enddate20130521
citationpf 8337 pt 8344 vol 110 issue 21
lsr30VSR-Enriched:[description, galeid, pqid, subject]
sort
titleA monocular contribution to stimulus rivalry
authorBrascamp, J. ; Sohn, H. ; Lee, S.-H. ; Blake, R.
creationdate20130521
lso0120130521
facets
frbrgroupid5589101572470809972
frbrtype5
languageeng
creationdate2013
prefilterarticles
rsrctypearticles
creatorcontrib
0Brascamp, J.
1Sohn, H.
2Lee, S.-H.
3Blake, R.
jtitleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
toplevelpeer_reviewed
delivery
delcategoryRemote Search Resource
fulltextfulltext
addata
aulast
0Brascamp
1Sohn
2Lee
3Blake
aufirst
0J.
1H.
2S.-H.
3R.
au
0Brascamp, J.
1Sohn, H.
2Lee, S.-H.
3Blake, R.
atitleA monocular contribution to stimulus rivalry
jtitleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
stitleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
risdate20130521
adddate
020130521
12013201305052121
22013
32013201304052221
volume110
issue21
spage8337
epage8344
pages8337-8344
issn0027-8424
eissn1091-6490
formatjournal
genrearticle
ristypeJOUR
doi10.1073/pnas.1305393110
lad012
lad25drop record use citations
citing
0$$t=2$$K1=2002$$K2=1471003X$$K3=10.1038/nrn701$$K4=3$$K5=1$$K6=13$$K7=nature reviews neuroscience$$K15=blake$$K16=blake$$K18=blake
1$$t=2$$K1=1996$$K2=14764687$$K3=10.1038/380621a0$$K4=380$$K5=6575$$K6=621$$K7=nature physical science london$$K15=logothetis$$K16=logothetis$$K18=logothetis
2$$t=2$$K1=2003$$K2=00278424$$K3=10.1073/pnas.2333622100$$K4=100$$K5=24$$K6=14499$$K7=pnas
3$$t=2$$K1=2006$$K2=13646613$$K3=10.1016/j.tics.2006.09.003$$K4=10$$K5=11$$K6=502$$K7=trends in cognitive sciences$$K15=tong$$K16=tong$$K18=tong
4$$t=2$$K1=2007$$K2=15347362$$K4=7$$K5=2$$K6=2.1$$K7=journal of vision$$K15=tripathy$$K16=tripathy$$K18=tripathy
5$$t=2$$K1=1969$$K2=00223751$$K4=203$$K5=1$$K6=237$$K7=journal of physiology$$K15=blakemore$$K16=blakemore$$K18=blakemore
6$$t=2$$K1=1977$$K2=00223077$$K4=40$$K5=5$$K6=1051$$K7=journal of neurophysiology$$K15=vautin$$K16=vautin$$K18=vautin
7$$t=2$$K1=1979$$K2=14764687$$K3=10.1038/278850a0$$K4=278$$K5=5707$$K6=850$$K7=nature physical science london$$K15=movshon$$K16=movshon$$K18=movshon
8$$t=2$$K1=2006$$K2=00278424$$K3=10.1073/pnas.0509634103$$K4=103$$K5=12$$K6=4783$$K7=pnas
9$$t=2$$K1=2010$$K2=15347362$$K3=10.1167/10.12.24$$K4=10$$K5=12$$K6=24$$K7=journal of vision
10$$t=2$$K1=2010$$K2=0898929X$$K3=10.1162/jocn.2009.21397$$K4=22$$K5=10$$K6=2326$$K7=journal of cognitive neuroscience$$K15=brascamp$$K16=brascamp$$K18=brascamp
11$$t=2$$K1=2004$$K2=03010066$$K3=10.1068/p5174$$K4=33$$K5=2$$K6=249$$K7=perception$$K15=montaserkouhsari$$K16=montaserkouhsari$$K18=montaserkouhsari
12$$t=2$$K1=1981$$K2=00961523$$K3=10.1037/0096-1523.7.2.367$$K4=7$$K5=2$$K6=367$$K7=journal of experimental psychology human perception performance$$K15=blake$$K16=blake$$K18=blake
13$$t=2$$K1=1979$$K2=03010066$$K3=10.1068/p080143$$K4=8$$K5=2$$K6=143$$K7=perception$$K15=blake$$K16=blake$$K18=blake
14$$t=2$$K1=1986$$K2=03010066$$K3=10.1068/p150419$$K4=15$$K5=4$$K6=419$$K7=perception$$K15=wade$$K16=wade$$K18=wade
15$$t=2$$K1=2010$$K2=00315117$$K3=10.3758/APP.72.1.179$$K4=72$$K5=1$$K6=179$$K7=attention perception amp psychophysics$$K15=kang$$K16=kang$$K18=kang
16$$t=2$$K1=2008$$K2=15347362$$K4=8$$K5=15$$K6=17.1$$K7=journal of vision$$K15=kim$$K16=kim$$K18=kim
17$$t=2$$K1=2012$$K2=19326203$$K3=10.1371/journal.pone.0030595$$K4=7$$K5=1$$K6=e30595$$K15=dejong$$K16=jongde$$K18=jong
18$$t=2$$K1=2012$$K2=09295313$$K3=10.1007/s10827-011-0347-7$$K4=32$$K5=1$$K6=177$$K7=journal of computational neuroscience$$K15=noest$$K16=noest$$K18=noest
19$$t=2$$K1=2011$$K2=1471003X$$K4=13$$K6=1$$K7=nature reviews neuroscience
20$$t=2$$K1=2007$$K2=03064522$$K3=10.1016/j.neuroscience.2007.01.030$$K4=146$$K5=1$$K6=435$$K7=neuroscience$$K15=baker$$K16=baker$$K18=baker
21$$t=2$$K1=1989$$K2=09525238$$K4=2$$K5=1$$K6=41$$K7=visual neuroscience$$K15=bonds$$K16=bonds$$K18=bonds
22$$t=2$$K1=1998$$K2=00223077$$K4=79$$K5=1$$K6=227$$K7=journal of neurophysiology$$K15=walker$$K16=walker$$K18=walker
23$$t=2$$K1=2009$$K2=15347362$$K4=9$$K5=2$$K6=13.1$$K7=journal of vision$$K15=piponnier$$K16=piponnier$$K18=piponnier
24$$t=2$$K1=2008$$K2=15347362$$K4=8$$K5=9$$K6=15.1$$K7=journal of vision$$K15=georg$$K16=georg$$K18=georg
25$$t=2$$K1=1980$$K2=03010066$$K4=9$$K5=2$$K6=223$$K7=perception$$K15=blake$$K16=blake$$K18=blake
26$$t=2$$K1=1999$$K2=00426989$$K3=10.1016/S0042-6989(98)00269-7$$K4=39$$K5=8$$K6=1447$$K7=vision research$$K15=lee$$K16=lee$$K18=lee
27$$t=2$$K1=2006$$K2=00278424$$K3=10.1073/pnas.0509629103$$K4=103$$K5=4$$K6=1141$$K7=pnas
28$$t=2$$K1=2008$$K2=15347362$$K4=8$$K5=4$$K6=13.1$$K7=journal of vision$$K15=sigman$$K16=sigman$$K18=sigman
29$$t=2$$K1=2012$$K2=0898929X$$K3=10.1162/jocn_a_00121$$K4=24$$K5=1$$K6=246$$K7=journal of cognitive neuroscience$$K15=denison$$K16=denison$$K18=denison
30$$t=2$$K1=2011$$K2=16625161$$K4=5$$K6=1$$K15=braun$$K16=braun$$K18=braun
31$$t=2$$K1=2005$$K2=00223077$$K3=10.1152/jn.00203.2005$$K4=94$$K5=2$$K6=1645$$K7=journal of neurophysiology
32$$t=2$$K1=2012$$K2=19326203$$K3=10.1371/journal.pone.0045407$$K4=7$$K5=9$$K6=e45407$$K15=bhardwaj$$K16=bhardwaj$$K18=bhardwaj
33$$t=2$$K1=2004$$K2=15347362$$K3=10.1167/4.3.6$$K4=4$$K5=3$$K6=196$$K7=journal of vision$$K15=pearson$$K16=pearson$$K18=pearson
34$$t=2$$K1=2008$$K2=15347362$$K4=7$$K6=12.1$$K7=journal of vision
35$$t=2$$K1=2010$$K2=15347362$$K3=10.1167/10.12.3$$K4=10$$K5=12$$K6=3$$K7=journal of vision
36$$t=2$$K1=2010$$K2=02706474$$K3=10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0677-10.2010$$K4=30$$K5=37$$K6=12353$$K7=journal of neuroscience$$K15=keliris$$K16=keliris$$K18=keliris
37$$t=2$$K1=2005$$K2=09567976$$K3=10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01566.x$$K4=16$$K5=7$$K6=516$$K7=psychological science$$K15=pearson$$K16=pearson$$K18=pearson
38$$t=2$$K1=2001$$K2=00426989$$K3=10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00013-X$$K4=41$$K5=8$$K6=981$$K7=vision research$$K15=bonneh$$K16=bonneh$$K18=bonneh
39$$t=2$$K1=1998$$K2=10473211$$K3=10.1093/cercor/8.2.97$$K4=8$$K5=2$$K6=97$$K7=cerebral cortex$$K15=crick$$K16=crick$$K18=crick
40$$t=2$$K1=2002$$K2=1471003X$$K3=10.1038/nrn783$$K4=3$$K5=4$$K6=261$$K7=nature reviews neuroscience$$K15=rees$$K16=rees$$K18=rees
41$$t=2$$K1=2003$$K2=1471003X$$K3=10.1038/nrn1055$$K4=4$$K5=3$$K6=219$$K7=nature reviews neuroscience$$K15=tong$$K16=tong$$K18=tong
42$$t=2$$K1=1983$$K2=00315117$$K3=10.3758/BF03202828$$K4=33$$K5=2$$K6=113$$K7=attention perception amp psychophysics$$K15=watson$$K16=watson$$K18=watson
43$$t=2$$K1=2006$$K2=15347362$$K3=10.1167/6.11.3$$K4=6$$K5=11$$K6=1172$$K7=journal of vision$$K15=vandam$$K16=vandam$$K18=vandam
date2013-05-21