To answer the question ‘What is suppressed during binocular rivalry?’ a series of three experiments was performed. In the first experiment observers viewed binocular rivalry between orthogonally oriented patterns. When the dominant and suppressed patterns were interchanged between the eyes observers continued seeing with the dominant eye, indicating that an eye, not a pattern, is suppressed during rivalry. In a second experiment it was found that a suppressed eye was able to contribute to stereopsis. A third experiment demonstrated that the predominance of an eye could be influenced by prior adaptation of the other eye, indicating that binocular mechanisms participate in the rivalry process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AsherH, 1953“Suppression theory of binocular vision”British Journal of Ophthalmology3737–49
2.
BlakeRCamisaJ C, 1979“On the inhibitory nature of binocular rivalry suppression”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance5315–323
3.
BlakeRFoxR, 1974“Binocular rivalry suppression: Insensitive to spatial frequency and orientation change”Vision Research14687–692
4.
BlakeROvertonR, 1979“The site of binocular rivalry suppression”Perception8143–152
5.
BlakemoreC, 1970“A new kind of stereoscopic vision”Vision Research101181–1200
6.
BlakemoreCCampbellF W, 1969“On the existence of neurones in the human visual system selectively sensitive to the orientation and size of retinal images”Journal of Physiology (London)203237–260
7.
BlakemoreCFiorentiniAMaffeiL, 1972a“A second neural mechanism of binocular depth discrimination”Journal of Physiology (London)226725–740
8.
BlakemoreCIversonS DZangwillO L, 1972b“Brain functions”Annual Review of Psychology23413–456
9.
BlakemoreCSuttonP, 1969“Size adaptation: A new aftereffect”Science166245–247
BurnsD BPritchardR, 1968“Cortical conditions for fused binocular vision”Journal of Physiology (London)197149–171
12.
CampbellF WGreenD, 1965“Optical and retinal factors affecting visual resolution”Journal of Physiology (London)181576–593
13.
FoxRCheckR, 1972“Independence between binocular rivalry suppression duration and magnitude of suppression”Journal of Experimental Psychology93283–289
14.
von HelmholtzH, 1866/1925Treatise on Physiological Optics, volume 3, translated from the 3rd German edition, Ed. SouthallJ P C (New York: Optical Society of America; New York: Dover, republished 1962)
15.
JuleszBMillerJ E, 1975“Independent spatial-frequency-tuned channels in binocular fusion and rivalry”Perception4125–143
16.
LeveltW J M, 1965On Binocular Rivalry (Soesterberg, The Netherlands: Institute for Perception RVO-TNO)
17.
VerhoeffF H, 1935“A new theory of binocular vision”Archives of Ophthalmology13151–175
18.
WadeN J, 1973“Contour synchrony in binocular rivalry”Perception and Psychophysics13423–425
19.
WalesRFoxR, 1970“Increment detection thresholds during binocular rivalry suppression”Perception and Psychophysics890–94
20.
WalkerP, 1978“Binocular rivalry: Central or peripheral process”Psychological Bulletin85376–389
21.
WalkerPPowellD J, 1979“The sensitivity of binocular rivalry to changes in the nondominant stimulus”Vision Research19247–249
22.
WhittlePBloorD CPocockS, 1968“Some experiments on figurai effects in binocular rivalry”Perception and Psychophysics4183–188
