Subjective value determines initial dominance in binocular rivalry

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Volumn 48, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 122-129

  Balcetis, Emily ^a   Dunning, David ^b   Granot, Yael ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

Binocular rivalry; Motivation; New look; Reward; Visual perception

Indexed keywords

EID: 82655172390     PISSN: 00221031     EISSN: 10960465     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.08.009     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Alpers G.W., Gerdes A.B. Here is looking at you: Emotional faces predominate in binocular rivalry. Emotion 2007, 7:495-506.
2. Alpers G.W., Pauli P. Emotional pictures predominate in binocular rivalry. Cognition & Emotion 2006, 20:596-607.
3. Balcetis E., Dunning D. See what you want to see: Motivational influences on visual processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2006, 91:612-625.
4. Balcetis E., Dunning D. Cognitive dissonance and the perception of natural environments. Psychological Science 2007, 18:917-921.
5. Balcetis E., Dunning D. Wishful seeing: More desired objects are seen as closer. Psychological Science 2010, 21:147-152.
6. Baumeister R.F., Bratslavsky E., Finkenauer C., Vohs K.D. Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology 2001, 5:323-370.
7. Baumeister R.F., Newman L.S. Self-regulation of cognitive inference and decision processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1994, 20:3-19.
8. Blake R., Logothetis N.K. Visual competition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2002, 3:13-21.
9. Blanchette I., Richards A. The influence of affect on higher level cognition: A review of research on interpretation, judgment, decision making and reasoning. Cognition & Emotion 2010, 24:561-595.
10. Bornstein R.F. Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987. Psychological Bulletin 1989, 106:265-289.
11. Carter O., Cavanagh P. Onset rivalry: Brief presentation isolates an early independent phase of perceptual competition. PloS One 2007, 2(4):e343. 10.1371/journal.pone.0000343.
12. Cunningham W.A., Johnson M.K., Raye C.L., Catenby J.C., Gore J.C., Banaji M.R. Separable neural components in the processing of black and white faces. Psychological Science 2004, 15:806-813.
13. Cunningham W.A., Van Bavel J.J., Johnsen I.R. Affective flexibility: Evaluative processing goals shape amygdala activity. Psychological Science 2008, 19:152-160.
14. Dunning D. Trait importance and modifiability as factors influencing self-assessment and self-enhancement motives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1995, 21:1297-1306.
15. Dunning D. On the motives underlying social cognition. Intraindividual processes 2001, 1:348-374. Blackwell, New York. N. Schwarz, A. Tesser (Eds.).
16. Erdelyi M.H. A new look at the new look: Perceptual defense and vigilance. Psychological Review 1974, 81:1-25.
17. Eriksen C.W., Browne T. An experimental and theoretical analysis of perceptual defense. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1956, 52:224-230.
18. Fang F., He S. Cortical responses to invisible objects in the human dorsal and ventral pathways. Nature Neuroscience 2005, 8:1380-1385.
19. Fox R. Binocular rivalry. Binocular vision and psychophysics 1991, 93-110. MacMillan Press, Ltd, London. D.M. Regan (Ed.).
20. Jiang Y., Costello P., Fang F., Huang M., He S. A gender- and sexual orientation-dependent spatial attention effect of invisible images. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2006, 103(45):17048-17052.
21. Jiang Y., Costello P., He S. Processing of invisible stimuli: Advantage of upright faces and recognizable words in overcoming interocular suppression. Psychological Science 2007, 18:349-355.
22. Kaufman L. On the spread of suppression and binocular rivalry. Vision Research 1963, 3(9-10):401-415.
23. Kunda Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 1990, 108:480-498.
24. LeDoux J.E. Emotion circuits in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology 2000, 23:155-184.
25. Lehky S.R. An astable multivibrator model of binocular rivalry. Perception 1988, 17:215-228.
26. Levelt W.J. The alternation process in binocular rivalry. British Journal of Psychology 1966, 57:225-238.
27. Lo Sciuto L.A., Hartley E.L. Religious affiliation and open-mindedness in binocular resolution. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1963, 12(2):427-430.
28. Meng M., Tong F. Can attention selectively bias bistable perception? Differences between binocular rivalry and ambiguous figures. Journal of Vision 2004, 4:539-551.
29. Moutoussis K., Keliris G.A., Kourtzi Z., Logothetis N.K. A binocular rivalry study of motion perception in the human brain. Vision Research 2005, 45:2231-2243.
30. Pasley B.N., Mayes L.C., Schultz R.T. Subcortical discrimination of unperceived objects during binocular rivalry. Neuron 2004, 42:163-172.
31. Prentice W.C.H. Perception. Annual Review of Psychology 1958, 9:1-18.
32. Raymond J.E., O'Brien J.L. Selective visual attention and motivation: The consequences of value learning in an attentional blink task. Psychological Science 2009, 20(8):981-988.
33. Sugie N. Neural models of brightness perception and retinal rivalry in binocular vision. Biological Cybernetics 1982, 43:13-21.
34. Tesser A., Smith J. Some effects of task relevance and friendship on helping: You don't always help the ones you like. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1980, 16(6):582-590.
35. Tong F. Competing theories of binocular rivalry: A possible resolution. Brain and Mind 2001, 2:55-83.
36. Tong F., Meng M., Blake R. Neural bases of binocular rivalry. Trends in Cognitive Science 2006, 10:502-511.
37. Tong F., Nakayama K., Vaughan J.T., Kanwisher N. Binocular rivalry and visual awareness in human extrastriate cortex. Neuron 1998, 21:753-759.
38. Van Boxtel J.J.A., Alais D., Erkelens C.J., van Ee R. The role of temporally coarse form processing during binocular rivalry. PloS One 2008, 3:e1429.