Activity in early visual areas predicts interindividual differences in binocular rivalry dynamics

Journal of Neurophysiology

Volumn 111, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 1190-1202

  Yamashiro, Hiroyuki ^a   Yamamoto, Hiroki ^a   Mano, Hiroaki ^b   Umeda, Masahiro ^b   Higuchi, Toshihiro ^b   Saiki, Jun ^a  

^a KYOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b MEIJI UNIVERSITY OF INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE   (Japan)

Author keywords

Binocular rivalry dynamics; Continuous flash suppression; Early visual areas; fMRI; Functional magnetic resonance imaging; Individual differences

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BINOCULAR VISION; BRAIN REGION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; EVOKED RESPONSE; EYE DOMINANCE; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; FUNCTIONAL NEUROIMAGING; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INDIVIDUALITY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEPTIVE FIELD; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; VISIBILITY; VISUAL STIMULATION;

BINOCULAR RIVALRY DYNAMICS; CONTINUOUS FLASH SUPPRESSION; EARLY VISUAL AREAS; FMRI; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALITY; MALE; VISION DISPARITY; VISION, OCULAR; VISUAL CORTEX; VISUAL PATHWAYS;

EID: 84900797567     PISSN: 00223077     EISSN: 15221598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00509.2013     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Alais D, Cass JR, O'Shea RP, Blake R. Visual sensitivity underlying changes in visual consciousness. Curr Biol 20: 1362-1367, 2010.
2. Ban H, Yamamoto H. A non-device-specific approach to display characterization based on linear, nonlinear, and hybrid search algorithms. J Vis 13: 20, 2013.
3. Blake R, Wilson H. Binocular vision. Vision Res 51: 754-770, 2011.
4. Boynton GM, Demb JB, Glover GH, Heeger DJ. Neuronal basis of contrast discrimination. Vision Res 39: 257-269, 1999.
5. Brascamp JW, van Ee R, Noest AJ, Jacobs RH, van den Berg AV. The time course of binocular rivalry reveals a fundamental role of noise. J Vis 6: 1244-1256, 2006.
6. Britz J, Pitts MA, Michel CM. Right parietal brain activity precedes perceptual alternation during binocular rivalry. Hum Brain Mapp 32: 1432-1442, 2011.
7. Carmel D, Walsh V, Lavie N, Rees G. Right parietal TMS shortens dominance durations in binocular rivalry. Curr Biol 20: R799-R800, 2010.
8. Carter O, Cavanagh P. Onset rivalry: brief presentation isolates an early independent phase of perceptual competition. PLoS One 2: e343, 2007.
9. Cleeremans A. Consciousness: the radical plasticity thesis. Prog Brain Res 168: 19-33, 2008.
10. Dale AM. Optimal experimental design for event-related fMRI. Hum Brain Mapp 8: 109-114, 1999.
11. DeYoe EA, Carman GJ, Bandettini P, Glickman S, Wieser J, Cox R, Miller D, Neitz J. Mapping striate and extrastriate visual areas in human cerebral cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93: 2382-2386, 1996.
12. Dumoulin SO, Wandell BA. Population receptive field estimates in human visual cortex. Neuroimage 39: 647-660, 2008.
13. Efron B, Tibshirani R. An Introduction to the Bootstrap, Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1993.
14. Engel SA, Glover GH, Wandell BA. Retinotopic organization in human visual cortex and the spatial precision of functional MRI. Cereb Cortex 7: 181-192, 1997.
15. Hancock S, Gareze L, Findlay JM, Andrews TJ. Temporal patterns of saccadic eye movements predict individual variation in alternation rate during binocular rivalry. Iperception 3: 88-96, 2012.
16. Haynes JD, Deichmann R, Rees G. Eye-specific effects of binocular rivalry in the human lateral geniculate nucleus. Nature 438: 496-499, 2005.
17. Haynes JD, Rees G. Predicting the stream of consciousness from activity in human visual cortex. Curr Biol 15: 1301-1307, 2005.
18. Hesselmann G, Malach R. The link between fMRI-BOLD activation and perceptual awareness is "stream-invariant" in the human visual system. Cereb Cortex 21: 2829-2837, 2011.
19. Kanai R, Bahrami B, Rees G. Human parietal cortex structure predicts individual differences in perceptual rivalry. Curr Biol 20: 1626-1630, 2010.
20. Kimmig H, Greenlee MW, Gondan M, Schira M, Kassubek J, Mergner T. Relationship between saccadic eye movements and cortical activity as measured by fMRI: quantitative and qualitative aspects. Exp Brain Res 141: 184-194, 2001.
21. Knapen T, Brascamp J, Adams WJ, Graf EW. The spatial scale of perceptual memory in ambiguous figure perception. J Vis 9: 16.1-12, 2009
22. Knapen T, Brascamp J, Pearson J, van Ee R, Blake R. The role of frontal and parietal brain areas in bistable perception. J Neurosci 31: 10293-10301, 2011.
23. Lacouture Y, Cousineau D. How to use MATLAB to fit the ex-Gaussian and other probability functions to a distribution of response times. Tutorials Quant Meth Psychol 4: 35-45, 2008.
24. Lee SH, Blake R, Heeger DJ. Hierarchy of cortical responses underlying binocular rivalry. Nat Neurosci 10: 1048-1054, 2007.
25. Lee SH, Blake R, Heeger DJ. Traveling waves of activity in primary visual cortex during binocular rivalry. Nat Neurosci 8: 22-23, 2005.
26. Lehky SR. Binocular rivalry is not chaotic. Proc Biol Sci 259: 71-76, 1995.
27. Leopold DA, Logothetis NK. Activity changes in early visual cortex reflect monkeys' percepts during binocular rivalry. Nature 379: 549-553, 1996.
28. Levelt WJ. Note on the distribution of dominance times in binocular rivalry. Br J Psychol 58: 143-145, 1967.
29. Logothetis NK, Schall JD. Neuronal correlates of subjective visual perception. Science 245: 761-763, 1989.
30. Lumer ED, Friston KJ, Rees G. Neural correlates of perceptual rivalry in the human brain. Science 280: 1930-1934, 1998.
31. Maeda K, Yamamoto H, Fukunaga M, Umeda M, Tanaka C, Ejima Y. Neural correlates of color-selective metacontrast in human early retinotopic areas. J Neurophysiol 104: 2291-2301, 2010.
32. Maier A, Wilke M, Aura C, Zhu C, Ye FQ, Leopold DA. Divergence of fMRI and neural signals in V1 during perceptual suppression in the awake monkey. Nat Neurosci 11: 1193-1200, 2008.
33. Mendola JD, Conner IP. Eye dominance predicts fMRI signals in human retinotopic cortex. Neurosci Lett 414: 30-34, 2007.
34. Miller SM, Hansell NK, Ngo TT, Liu GB, Pettigrew JD, Martin NG, Wright MJ. Genetic contribution to individual variation in binocular rivalry rate. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107: 2664-2668, 2010.
35. Palmer SE. Visual awareness. In Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999, p. 616-663.
36. Pearson J, Tadin D, Blake R. The effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation on visual rivalry. J Vis 7: 2.1-11, 2007.
37. Pettigrew JD, Miller SM. A "sticky" interhemispheric switch in bipolar disorder? Proc Biol Sci 265: 2141-2148, 1998.
38. Polonsky A, Blake R, Braun J, Heeger DJ. Neuronal activity in human primary visual cortex correlates with perception during binocular rivalry. Nat Neurosci 3: 1153-1159, 2000.
39. Rees G. Neural correlates of the contents of visual awareness in humans. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 362: 877-886, 2007.
40. Saiki J, Yoshioka A, Yamamoto H. Type-based associations in graphemecolor synaesthesia revealed by response time distribution analyses. Conscious Cogn 20: 1548-1557, 2011.
41. Sereno MI, Dale AM, Reppas JB, Kwong KK, Belliveau JW, Brady TJ, Rosen BR, Tootell RB. Borders of multiple visual areas in humans revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Science 268: 889-893, 1995.
42. Stanley J, Forte JD, Cavanagh P, Carter O. Onset rivalry: the initial dominance phase is independent of ongoing perceptual alternations. Front Hum Neurosci 5: 140, 2011.
43. Tong F, Engel SA. Interocular rivalry revealed in the human cortical blindspot representation. Nature 411: 195-199, 2001.
44. Tong F, Nakayama K, Vaughan JT, Kanwisher NG. Binocular rivalry and visual awareness in human extrastriate cortex. Neuron 21: 753-759, 1998.
45. Tsuchiya N, Koch C, Gilroy LA, Blake R. Depth of interocular suppression associated with continuous flash suppression, flash suppression, and binocular rivalry. J Vis 6: 1068-1078, 2006.
46. Tsuchiya N, Koch C. Continuous flash suppression reduces negative afterimages. Nat Neurosci 8: 1096-1101, 2005.
47. van Dam LC, van Ee R. Retinal image shifts, but not eye movements per se, cause alternations in awareness during binocular rivalry. J Vis 6: 1172-1179, 2006.
48. van Loon AM, Knapen T, Scholte HS, St John-Saaltink E, Donner TH, Lamme VA. GABA shapes the dynamics of bistable perception. Curr Biol 23: 823-827, 2013.
49. Watanabe M, Cheng K, Murayama Y, Ueno K, Asamizuya T, Tanaka K, Logothetis NK. Attention but not awareness modulates the BOLD signal in the human V1 during binocular suppression. Science 334: 829-831, 2011.
50. Wilke M, Logothetis NK, Leopold DA. Local field potential reflects perceptual suppression in monkey visual cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103: 17507-17512, 2006.
51. Wunderlich K, Schneider KA, Kastner S. Neural correlates of binocular rivalry in the human lateral geniculate nucleus. Nat Neurosci 8: 1595-1602, 2005.
52. Yamamoto H, Ban H, Fukunaga M, Umeda M, Tanaka C, Ejima Y. Largeand small-scale functional organization of visual field representation in the human visual cortex. In: Visual Cortex: New Research, edited by Portocello TA, Velloti RB. New York: Nova Science, 2008, p. 195-226.
53. Yamamoto H, Fukunaga M, Takahashi S, Mano H, Tanaka C, Umeda M, Ejima Y. Inconsistency and uncertainty of the human visual area loci following surface-based registration: probability and entropy maps. Hum Brain Mapp 33: 121-129, 2012.
54. Zaretskaya N, Thielscher A, Logothetis NK, Bartels A. Disrupting parietal function prolongs dominance durations in binocular rivalry. Curr Biol 20: 2106-2111, 2010.
55. Zhou YH, Gao JB, White KD, Merk I, Yao K. Perceptual dominance time distributions in multistable visual perception. Biol Cybern 90: 256-263, 2004.