Object-based attention determines dominance in binocular rivalry

Abstract

A question of long-standing interest to philosophers, psychologists and neuroscientists is how the brain selects which signals enter consciousness1,2. Binocular rivalry and attention both involve selection of visual stimuli, but affect perception quite differently. During binocular rivalry, awareness alternates between two different stimuli presented to the two eyes. In contrast, attending to one of two different stimuli impairs discrimination of the ignored stimulus, but without causing it to disappear from consciousness. Here we show that despite this difference, attention and rivalry rely on shared object-based selection mechanisms. We cued attention to one of two superimposed transparent surfaces and then deleted the image of one surface from each eye, resulting in rivalry. Observers usually reported seeing only the cued surface. They were also less accurate in judging unpredictable changes in the features of the uncued surface. Our design ensured that selection of the cued surface could not have resulted from spatial, ocular or feature-based mechanisms. Rather, attention was drawn to one surface, and this caused the other surface to be perceptually suppressed during rivalry. These results raise the question of how object representations compete during these two forms of perceptual selection, even as the features of those objects change unpredictably over time.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Dominance-judgement task.
Figure 2: Data from dominance-judgement and double-translation tasks.

References

  1. 1

    James, W. The Principles of Psychology Vol. 1 (Henry Holt, New York, 1890)

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    von Helmholtz, H. Handbuch der physiologischen Optik 3rd edn (Voss, Hamburg, 1909)

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Lack, L. Selective Attention and the Control of Binocular Rivalry (Mouton, The Hague, 1978)

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Ooi, T. L. & He, Z. J. Binocular rivalry and visual awareness: the role of attention. Perception 28, 551–574 (1999)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Posner, M. I. Orienting of attention. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 32, 3–25 (1980)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Treisman, A. M. & Gelade, G. A feature-integration theory of attention. Cogn. Psychol. 12, 97–136 (1980)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Duncan, J. Selective attention and the organization of visual information. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 113, 501–517 (1984)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Schoenfeld, M. A. et al. Dynamics of feature binding during object-selective attention. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 11806–11811 (2003)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Blake, R. R. & Logothetis, N. K. Visual competition. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 3, 13–23 (2002)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Valdes-Sosa, M., Cobo, A. & Pinilla, T. Attention to object files defined by transparent motion. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 26, 488–505 (2000)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Pinilla, T., Cobo, A., Torres, K. & Valdes-Sosa, M. Attentional shifts between surfaces: effects on detection and early brain potentials. Vision Res. 41, 1619–1630 (2001)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Reynolds, J. H., Alborzian, S. & Stoner, G. R. Surface-based exogenous cueing triggers automatic competitive selection. Vision Res. 43, 59–66 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Mitchell, J. F., Stoner, G. R., Fallah, M. & Reynolds, J. H. Attentional selection of superimposed surfaces cannot be explained by modulation of the gain of color channels. Vision Res. 43, 1323–1328 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Blaser, E., Pylyshyn, Z. W. & Holcombe, A. O. Tracking an object through feature space. Nature 408, 196–199 (2000)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Sasaki, H. & Gyoba, J. Selective attention to stimulus features modulates interocular suppression. Perception 31, 409–419 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Logothetis, N. K., Leopold, D. A. & Sheinberg, D. L. What is rivalling during binocular rivalry? Nature 380, 621–624 (1996)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Lee, S. H. & Blake, R. Rival ideas about binocular rivalry. Vision Res. 39, 1447–1454 (1999)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Diaz-Caneja, E. Sur l'alternance binoculaire. Ann. Oculist October, 721–731 (1928)

  19. 19

    Whittle, P., Bloor, D. C. & Pocock, S. Some experiments on figural effects in binocular rivalry. Percept. Psychophys. 4, 183–188 (1968)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Kulikowski, J. J. Binocular chromatic rivalry and single vision. Ophthalmol. Physiol. Opt. 12, 168–170 (1992)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Kovacs, I., Papathomas, T. V., Yand, M. & Feher, A. When the brain changes its mind: interocular grouping during binocular rivalry. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 15508–15511 (1996)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Alais, D. & Blake, R. R. Interactions between global motion and local binocular rivalry. Vision Res. 38, 637–644 (1998)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Alais, D. & Blake, R. R. Grouping visual features during binocular rivalry. Vision Res. 39, 4341–4353 (1999)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Sobel, K. V. & Blake, R. How context influences predominance during binocular rivalry. Perception 31, 813–824 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Ooi, T. L. & He, Z. J. A distributed intercortical processing of binocular rivalry: psychophysical evidence. Perception 32, 155–166 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Castelo-Branco, M., Goebel, R., Neuenschwander, S. & Singer, W. Neural synchrony correlates with surface segregation rules. Nature 405, 685–689 (2000)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Thiele, A. & Stoner, G. Neural synchrony does not correlate with motion coherence in cortical area MT. Nature 421, 366–370 (2003)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Leopold, D. A. & Logothetis, N. K. Activity changes in early visual cortex reflect monkeys' percepts during binocular rivalry. Nature 379, 549–553 (1996)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Sheinberg, D. L. & Logothetis, N. K. The role of temporal cortical areas in perceptual organization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 3408–3418 (1997)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Leopold, D. A. & Logothetis, N. K. Multistable phenomena: changing views in perception. Trends Cogn. Sci. 3, 254–264 (1999)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank F. Crick, G. Horwitz, H. Jordan, B. Krekelberg, M. Richert and K. Sundberg for providing comments on the manuscript, and J. Reyes and C. Williams for testing subjects. J.M. was funded by an NIH Training Grant in Cognitive Neuroscience, G.S. was funded by an NEI grant and J.R. was funded by grants from NEI, The Sloan Foundation, and The McKnight Foundation.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John H. Reynolds.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Methods

This file provides details of the ANOVA analyses described in the manuscript text and also describes a control that verified that differences in the second translation duration did not contribute to the differences in the early time courses found between rivalry and monocular transparency conditions. (DOC 24 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mitchell, J., Stoner, G. & Reynolds, J. Object-based attention determines dominance in binocular rivalry. Nature 429, 410–413 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02584

Download citation

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.