No evidence for widespread synchronized networks in binocular rivalry: MEG frequency tagging entrains primarily early visual cortex

Journal of Vision

Volumn 8, Issue 5, 2008, Pages

  Kamphuisen, Allard ^a,b   Bauer, Markus ^c   van Ee, Raymond ^a,d  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

^d UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Binocular rivalry; Coherence; MEG frequency tagging; Synchronization

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AWARENESS; BINOCULAR VISION; BRAIN MAPPING; CORTICAL SYNCHRONIZATION; CRITICAL FLICKER FUSION; DEPTH PERCEPTION; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; MAGNETOENCEPHALOGRAPHY; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; VISUAL CORTEX;

AWARENESS; BRAIN MAPPING; CORTICAL SYNCHRONIZATION; FLICKER FUSION; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; MAGNETOENCEPHALOGRAPHY; PHOTIC STIMULATION; VISION DISPARITY; VISION, BINOCULAR; VISUAL CORTEX;

EID: 43649105147     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15347362     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/8.5.4     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Blake, R. (2001). A primer on binocular rivalry, including current controversies. Brain and Mind, 2, 5-38.
2. Brown, R. J., & Norcia, A. M. (1997). A method for investigation binocular rivalry in real-time with the steady-state VEP. Vision Research, 37, 2401-2408.
3. Cosmelli, D., David, O., Lachaux, J. P., Martinerie, J., Garnero, L., Renault, B., et al. (2004). Waves of consciousness: Ongoing cortical patterns during binocular rivalry. Neuroimage, 23, 128-140.
4. Edelman, G. M., & Tononi, G. (2000). A universe of consciousness: How matter becomes imagination. New York: Basic Books.
5. Engel, A. K., & Singer, W., (2001). Temporal binding and the neural correlates of sensory awareness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 16-25.
6. Gross, J., Kujala, J., Hamalainen, M., Timmermann, L., Shnitzler, A., & Salmelin, R. (2001). Dynamic imaging of coherent sources: Studying neural interaction in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98, 694-699.
7. Hämäläinen, M., Hari, R., Ilmoniemi, R. J., Knuutila, J., & Lounasmaa, O. V. (1993). Magnetoencephalography - Theory, instrumentation, and applications to noninvasive studies of the working human brain. Reviews of Modern Physics, 65, 413-497.
8. Hämäläinen, M. S., & Sarvas, J. (1989). Realistic conductivity geometry model of the human head for interpretation of neuromagnetic data. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 36, 165-171.
9. Klink, P. C., van Ee, R., Nijs, M. M., Brouwer, G. J., Noest, A. J., & van Wezel, R. J. A. (in press). Early interactions among stimulus timing, perceptual history, and voluntary control determine perceptual decisions. Journal of Vision.
10. Kornmeier, J., & Bach, M. (2004). Early neural activity in Necker-cube reversal: Evidence for low-level processing of a gestalt phenomenon. Psychophysiology, 41, 1-8.
11. Kornmeier, J., & Bach, M. (2005). The Necker cube - An ambiguous figure disambiguated in early visual processing. Vision Research, 45, 955-960.
12. Lansing, R. W. (1964). Electroencephalographic correlates of binocular rivalry in man. Science, 146, 1325-1327.
13. Lawwill, T., & Biersdorf, W. R. (1968). Binocular rivalry and visual evoked responses. Investigative Ophthalmology, 7, 378-385.
14. Lee, S. H., Blake, R., & Heeger, D. J. (2005). Traveling waves of activity in primary visual cortex during binocular rivalry. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 22-23.
15. Meng, M., & Tong, F. (2004). Can attention selectively bias bistable perception? Differences between binocular rivalry and ambiguous figures. Journal of Vision, 4(7):2, 539-551, http://journalofvision.org/ 4/7/2/, doi:10.1167/4.7.2.
16. Mitra, P. P., & Pesaran, B. (1999). Analysis of dynamic brain imaging data. Biophysical Journal, 76, 691-708.
17. Noest, A. J., van Ee, R., Nijs, M. M., & van Wezel, R. J. (2007). Percept-choice sequences driven by interrupted ambiguous stimuli: A low-level neural model. Journal of Vision, 7(8):10, 1-14, http://journalofvision.org/7/8/10/, doi:10.1167/7.8.10.
18. Pearson, J., Tadin, D., & Blake, R. (2007). The effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation on visual rivalry. Journal of Vision, 7(7):2, 1-11, http://journalofvision.org/7/7/2/, doi:10:1167/7.7.2.
19. Pitts, M. A., Nerger, J. L., & Davis, T. J. (2007). Electrophysiological correlates of perceptual reversals for three different types of multistable images. Journal of Vision, 7(1):6, 1-14, http://journalofvision.org/7/1/6/, doi:10.1167/7.1.6.
20. Shadlen, M. N., & Movshon, J. A. (1999). Synchrony unbound: A critical evaluation of the temporal binding hypothesis. Neuron, 24, 67-77.
21. Srinivasan, R., & Petrovich, S. (2006). MEG phase follows conscious perception during binocular rivalry during visual stream segregation. Cerebral Cortex, 16, 597-608.
22. Srinivasan, R., Russell, D. P., Edelman, G. M., & Tononi, G. (1999). Increased synchronisation of neuromagnetic responses during conscious perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 5435-5448.
23. Tong, F. (2003). Primary visual cortex and visual awareness. Nature Reviews, Neuroscience, 4, 219-229.
24. Tononi, G., Srinivasan, R., Russell, D. P., & Edelman, G. M. (1998). Investigating neural correlates of conscious perception by frequency-tagged neuromagnetic responses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 95, 3198-3203.
25. van Ee, R., van Dam, L. C. J., & Brouwer, G. J. (2005). Voluntary control and the dynamics of perceptual bistability. Vision Research, 45, 41-55.
26. Varela, F. J., Lachaux, J. P., Rodriguez, E., & Martinerie, J. (2001). The brainweb: Phase synchronization and large scale integration. Nature Reviews, Neuroscience, 2, 229-239.