The effects of categorical and linguistic adaptation on binocular rivalry initial dominance

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

Volumn , Issue JANUARY 2012, 2012, Pages 1-8

  Pelekanos, Vassilis ^a   Roumani, Daphne ^a   Moutoussis, Konstantinos ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS   (Greece)

Author keywords

Binocular rivalry; Embodied cognition; High level adaptation; Mental representations

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BINOCULAR VISION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EYE DOMINANCE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; RETINA RIVALRY; STIMULUS RESPONSE; VISION; VISUAL ADAPTATION; VISUAL STIMULATION;

EID: 84856774867     PISSN: 16625161     EISSN: 16625161     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00187     Document Type: Article

References (93)

1. Aguirre, G. K., Zarahn, E., and D'Esposito, M. (1998). An area within human ventral cortex sensitive to building stimuli: evidence and implications. Neuron 21, 373-383.
2. Alais, D., Cass, J., O'Shea, R. P., and Blake, R.(2010).Visualsensitivity underlyingchangesinvisualcon-sciousness. Curr.Biol. 20, 1362-1367.
3. Alais, D., and Melcher, D. (2007). Strength and coherence of binocular rivalry depends on shared stimulus complexity. Vis. Res. 47, 269-279.
4. Andrews, T. J., and Lotto, R. B. (2004). Fusion and rivalry are dependent on the perceptual meaning of visual stimuli. Curr. Biol. 14, 418-423.
5. Anstis, S. M., Verstraten, F. A. J., and Mather, G. (1998). The motion after-effect. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2, 111-117.
6. Aziz-Zadeh, L., Fiebach, C., Naranayan, S., Feldman, J., Dodge, E., and Ivry, R. (2008). Modulation of the FFA and PPA by language related to faces and places. Soc. Neurosci. 3, 229-238.
7. Bagby, J. W. (1957). A cross-cultural study of perceptual predominance in binocular rivalry. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 54, 331-334.
8. Bannerman, R. L., Milders, M. V., de Gelder, B., and Sahraie, A. (2008). Influence of emotional facial expressions on binocular rivalry. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 28, 317-326.
9. Barsalou, L. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behav. Brain Sci. 22, 577-660.
10. Bartels, A., and Logothetis, N. K. (2010). Binocular rivalry: a time-dependence of eye and stimulus contributions. J. Vis. 10, 1-14.
11. Bhardwaj, R., O'Shea, R., Alais, D., and Parker, A. (2008). Probing visual consciousness: rivalry between eyes and images. J. Vis. 8, 1-13.
12. Blake, R. (1989). A neural theory of binocular rivalry. Psychol. Rev. 96, 145-167.
13. Blake, R. (2001). A primer on binocular rivalry, including current controversies. Brain Mind 2, 5-38.
14. Blake, R., and Fox, R. (1974). Binocular rivalry suppression: insensitive to spatial frequency and orientation change. Vis. Res. 14, 687-692.
15. Blake, R., and Logothetis, N. K. (2002). Visual competition. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 3, 13-21.
16. Blake, R., Tadin, D., Sobel, K., Raissian, T., and Chong, S. C. (2006). Strength of visual adaptation depends on visual awareness. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 4783-4788.
17. Blake, R., Westendorf, D. J., and Overton, R. (1980). What is suppressed during binocular rivalry? Perception 9, 223-231.
18. Blake, R., and Wilson, H. (2011). Binocular vision. Vis. Res. 51, 754-770.
19. Blakemore, C., and Campbell, F. W. (1969). Adaptation to spatial stimuli. J. Physiol. 200, 11-13.
20. Brascamp, J. W., Knapen, T. H. J., Kanai, R., van Ee, R., and van den Berg, A. V. (2007). Flash suppression and flash facilitation in binocular rivalry. J. Vis. 7, 1-12.
21. Breese, B. B. (1909). Binocular rivalry. Psychol. Rev. 16, 410-415.
22. Carbon, C. C., and Ditye, T. (2011). Sustained effects of adaptation on the perception of familiar faces. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 37, 615-625.
23. Carlson, T. A., and He, S. (2000). Visible binocular beats from invisible monocular stimuli during binocular rivalry. Curr. Biol. 10, 1055-1058.
24. Carney, T., Shadlen, M., and Switkes, E. (1987). Parallel processing of motion and colour information. Nature 328, 647-649.
25. Clifford, C. W., Webster, M. A., Stanley, G. B., Stocker, A. A., Kohn A., Sharpee, T. O., and Schwartz, O. (2007). Visual adaptation: neural, psychological and computational aspects. Vis. Res. 47, 3125-3131.
26. Costello, P., Jiang, Y., Baartman, B., McGlennen, K., and He, S. (2009). Semantic and subword priming during binocular suppression. Conscious. Cogn. 18, 375-382.
27. Cziraki, C., Greenlee, M. W., and Kovacs, G. (2010). Neural correlates of high-level adaptation-related aftereffects. J. Neurophysiol. 103, 1410-1417.
28. de Graaf, T. A., de Jong, M. C., Goebel, R., van Ee, R., and Sack, A. T. (2011). On the functional relevance of frontal cortex for passive and voluntarily controlled bistable vision. Cereb. Cortex 10, 2322-2331.
29. Engel, E. (1956). The role of content in binocular resolution. Am. J. Psychol. 69, 87-91.
30. Epstein, R., and Kanwisher, N. (1998). A cortical representation of the local visual environment. Nature 392, 598-601.
31. Fincher-Kiefer, R. (2001). Perceptual components of situation models. Mem. Cogn. 29, 336-343.
32. Forster, K. I., and Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: a windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 35, 116-124.
33. Fox, R., and Check, R. (1968). Detection of motion during binocular rivalry suppression. J. Exp. Psychol. 78, 388-395.
34. Fox, R., and Rasche, F. (1969). Binocular rivalry and reciprocal inhibition. Percept. Psychophys. 5, 215-217.
35. Gallese, V., and Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain's concepts: the role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 22, 455-479.
36. Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behav. Brain Sci. 20, 1-55.
37. Glenberg, A. M., and Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 9, 558-565.
38. Hancock, S., Whitney, D., and Andrews, T. J. (2008). The initial interactions underlying binocular rivalry require visual awareness. J. Vis. 8, 1-9.
39. Harrad, R. A., McKee, S. P., Blake, R., and Yang, Y. (1994). Binocular rivalry disrupts stereopsis. Perception 23, 15-28.
40. Haynes, J. D., Deichmann, R., and Rees, G. (2005). Eye-specific effects of binocular rivalry in the human lateral geniculate nucleus. Nature 438, 496-499.
41. Holmes, D. J., Hancock, S., and Andrews, T. J. (2006). Independent binocular integration for form and colour. Vis. Res. 46, 665-677.
42. Hubel, D. H., and Wiesel, T. N. (1959). Receptive fields of single neurones in the cat's striate cortex. J. Physiol. 148, 574-591.
43. Isenberg, N., Silbersweig, D., Engelien, A., Emmerich, K., Malavade, K., Beati, B., Leon, A. C., and Stern, E. (1999). Linguistic threat activates the human amygdala. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96, 10456-10459.
44. Julesz, B., and Miller, J. E. (1975). Independent spatial frequency tuned channels in binocular fusion and rivalry. Perception 4, 125-143.
45. Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J., and Chun, M. (1997). The fusiform face area: a module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. J. Neurosci. 17, 4302-4311.
46. Kanwisher, N., Stanley, D., and Harris, A. (1999). The fusiform face area is selective for faces not animals. Neuroreport 10, 183-187.
47. Keliris, G. A., Logothetis, N. K., and Tolias, A. S. (2010). The role of the primary visual cortex in perceptual suppression of salient visual stimuli. J. Neurosci. 30, 12353-12365.
48. Klink, P. C., van Ee, R., Nijs, M. M., Brouwer, G. J., Noest, A. J., and van Wezel, R. J. (2008). Early interactions between neuronal adaptation and voluntary control determine perceptual choices in bistable vision. J. Vis. 8, 1-18.
49. Kovacs, I., Papathomas, T. V., Yang, M., and Feher, A. (1996). When the brain changes its mind: interocular grouping during binocular rivalry. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 93, 15508-15511.
50. Lankheet, M. J. (2006). Unraveling adaptation and mutual inhibition in perceptual rivalry. J. Vis. 6, 304-310.
51. Lee, S. H., and Blake, R. (1999). Rival ideas about binocular rivalry. Vis. Res. 39, 1447-1454.
52. Lehmkuhle, S., and Fox, R. (1975). Effect of binocular rivalry suppression on the motion aftereffect. Vis. Res. 15, 855-859.
53. Leopold, D. A., and Logothetis, N. K. (1996). Activity changes in early visual cortex reflect monkeys' percepts during binocular rivalry. Nature 379, 549-553.
54. Leopold, D. A., and Logothetis, N. K. (1999). Multistable phenomena: changing views in perception. Trends Cogn. Sci. 3, 254-264.
55. Levelt, W. (1965). On Binocular Rivalry. Assen: Royal VanGorcum.
56. Lin, Z., and He, S. (2009). Seeing the invisible: the scope and limits of unconscious processing in binocular rivalry. Prog. Neurobiol. 87, 195-211.
57. Logothetis, N. K. (1998). Single units and conscious vision. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 353, 1801-1818.
58. Logothetis, N. K., Leopold, D. A., and Sheinberg, D. L. (1996). What is rivalling during binocular rivalry? Nature 380, 621-624.
59. Logothetis, N. K., and Schall, J. D. (1989). Neuronal correlates of subjective visual perception. Science 245, 761-763.
60. McCarthy, G., Puce, A., Gore, J., and Allison, T. (1997). Face-specific processing in the human fusiform gyrus. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 9, 605-610.
61. Meteyard, L., Bahrami, B., and Vigliocco, G. (2007). Motion detection and motion verbs. Language affects low-level visual perception. Psychol. Sci. 18, 1007-1013.
62. Mitchell, J. F., Stoner, G. R., and Reynolds, J. H. (2004). Object-based attention determines dominance in binocular rivalry. Nature 429, 410-413.
63. Ogle, K. N., and Wakefield, J. M. (1967). Stereoscopic depth and binocular rivalry. Vis. Res. 7, 89-98.
64. Ooi, T. L., and He, Z. J. (2003). A distributed intercortical processing of binocular rivalry: psychophysical evidence. Perception 32, 155-166.
65. O'Shea, R. P., Sims, A. J. H., and Govan, D. G. (1997). The effect of spatial frequency and field size on the spread of exclusive visibility in binocular rivalry. Vis. Res. 37, 175-183.
66. Papathomas, T. V., Kovacs, I., Feher, A., and Julesz, B. (1999). Visual dilemmas: competition between eyes and between percepts in binocular rivalry, in Rutgers University Introduction to Cognitive Science, ed. E. Lepore (Basic Blackwell publishers), 263-294.
67. Pelekanos, V., and Moutoussis, K. (in press). The effect of language on visual contrast sensitivity. Perception.
68. Polonsky, A., Blake, R., Braun, J., and Heeger, D. (2000). Neuronal activity in human primary visual cortex correlates with perception during binocular rivalry. Nat. Neurosci. 3, 1153-1159.
69. Puce, A., Allison, T., Asgari, M., Gore, J. C., and McCarthy, G. (1996). Differential sensitivity of human visual cortex to faces, letter strings, and textures: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J. Neurosci. 16, 5205-5215.
70. Pulvermüller, F. (1999). Words in the brain's language. Behav. Brain Sci. 22, 253-336.
71. Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6, 576-582.
72. Rommetveit, R., Toch, H., and Svendsen, D. (1968). Effects of contingency and contrast contexts on the cognition of words. Scand. J. Psychol. 9, 138-144.
73. Sheinberg, D. L., and Logothetis, N. K. (1997). The role of temporal cortical areas in perceptual organization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 94, 3408-3413.
74. Sobel, K. V., and Blake, R. (2002). How context influences predominance during binocular rivalry. Perception 31, 813-824.
75. Speer, N. K., Reynolds, J. R., Swallow, K. M., and Zacks, J. M. (2009). Reading stories activates neural representations of visual and motor experiences. Psychol. Sci. 20, 989-999.
76. Stanfield, R. A., and Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychol. Sci. 12, 153-156.
77. Stocker, A. A., and Simoncelli, E. P. (2009). Visual motion aftereffects arise from a cascade of two isomorphic adaptation mechanisms. J. Vis. 9, 1-14.
78. Sutherland, N. S. (1961). Figural after- effects and apparent size. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 13, 222-228.
79. Tong, F. (2001). Competing theories of binocular rivalry: a possible resolution. Brain Mind 2, 55-83.
80. Tong, F., and Engel, S. A. (2001). Interocular rivalry revealed in the human cortical blind-spot representation. Nature 411, 195-199.
81. Tong, F., Meng, M., and Blake, R. (2006). Neural bases of binocular rivalry. Trends Cogn. Sci. 10, 502-511.
82. Tong, F., Nakayama, K., Vaughan, J. T., and Kanwisher, N. (1998). Binocular rivalry and visual awareness in human extrastriate cortex. Neuron 21, 753-759.
83. van Boxtel, J. J. A., Alais, D., and van Ee, R. (2008). Retinotopic and non-retinotopic stimulus encoding in binocular rivalry and the involvement of feedback. J. Vis. 8, 1-10.
84. van Ee, R., van Dam, L. C., and Brouwer, G. J. (2005). Voluntary control and the dynamics of perceptual bi-stability. Vis. Res. 45, 41-55.
85. Walker, P. (1978). Binocular rivalry: central or peripheral selective processes? Psychol. Bull. 85, 376-389.
86. Wheatstone, C. (1838). Contributions to the physiology of vision.1. On some remarkable and hitherto unobserved phenomena of binocular vision. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 8, 371-394.
87. Wilson, H. R., Blake, R., and Lee, S. H. (2001). Dynamics of travelling waves in visual perception. Nature 412, 907-910.
88. Wohlgemuth, A. (1911). On the aftereffect of seen movement. Br. J. Psychol. Monogr. Suppl. 1, 1-117.
89. Wolfe, J. M. (1984). Reversing ocular dominance and suppression in a single flash. Vis. Res. 24, 471-478.
90. Yaxley, R. H., and Zwaan, R. A. (2007). Simulating visibility during language comprehension. Cognition 105, 229-236.
91. Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 44, 35-62.
92. Zwaan, R. A., Madden, C. J., Yaxley, R. H., and Aveyard, M. E. (2004). Moving words: dynamic representations in language comprehension. Cogn. Sci. 28, 611-619.
93. Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., and Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychol. Sci. 13, 168-171.