Comparison of Binocular Rivalry and Stimulus Rivalry with Manipulation of Interocular Grouping.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Binocular rivalry results in perceptual alternations with conflicting images in each eye. Stimulus rivalry allows a similar percept despite repeated swapping of the images in each eye (Logothetis et al, 1996, Blake, 2001). Recent studies have further characterized the parameters required for rivalry, and proposed an integrated framework that may suggest a similar mechanism for both types of rivalry (Van Boxtel et al, 2008). However, a direct comparison of binocular and stimulus rivalry has not been reported with manipulation of interocular grouping. We tested subjects with matched stimuli in both rivalry conditions. The stimuli were sinusoidal gratings (left & right oblique orientations) at 1.4 cpd, and 3.8 degree size. Luminance contrast was 70% or 100%. For binocular rivalry, images were presented dichoptically (with polarizers) with short blank periods, stimulus flicker at 5.6 Hz. For stimulus rivalry, the stimuli were identical except that the images shown to each eye were swapped at 5.6 Hz. Another similar condition created stimulus ‘quilts,’ by presenting half of one grating to one eye and the other half to the other eye, to increase the demands on interocular grouping. Subjects performed a rivalry report task. We find that alternation rates do not differ for the binocular and stimulus rivalry conditions, for both intact and quilted stimuli, suggesting a common mechanism at the binocular stage for both conditions (average alternation periods were 1.4, 1.6, 2.2, and 2.2 sec respectively for binoc/intact, stim/intact, binoc/quilt, and stim/quilt). This result holds with flicker rates slow enough to defeat monocular masking. Alternation rates are modestly slower for both the quilted conditions. This is consistent with greater grouping demands and possibly a greater network contribution from higher visual areas. Future fMRI work could test hypotheses regarding the neural sites of binocular versus stimulus rivalry, monocular or binocular masking, and interocular grouping. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".