Binocular rivalry between spiral space stimuli in human observers: Expanding stimuli dominates over contraction and rotation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During binocular rivalry, monocular stimuli compete for perceptual dominance. It is thought that rivalry arises from competitive interactions at different levels in the visual system between groups of neurons holding monocular representations of visual stimuli (Blake & Logothetis, 2002). It has been shown that increasing the strength of a visual representation by attending to it or increasing its contrast prolongs the corresponding rivalry period (Chong & Blake, 2002). We hypothesize that existing biases in the representation strength of expanding spiral stimuli in area MSTd shall prolong their corresponding rivalry periods (predominate) compared to other spiral motion types. In MSTd, expansion neurons outnumber contraction neurons by a ratio of ∼2:1, and rotation neurons by a ratio of ∼3:1 (Duffy & Wurtz, 1991; Graziano et al., 1994; Saito et al., 1986; Tanaka & Saito, 1989). We tested this hypothesis by measuring rivalry periods for combinations of expanding, contracting, and rotating random dot patterns (RDPs) in seven human observers. The RDPs were presented monocularly through a stereoscope and were matched for contrast and speed. We found that: a) expansion generally predominated over contraction (Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test, Left Eye (LE): p = 0.0156; Right Eye (RE): p = 0.0781), and rotation (LE: p = 0.02345; RE: p = 0.02345), b) contraction generally predominated over rotation although it did not reach statistical significance (LE: p = 0.1485; RE: p = 0.1953), and c) clockwise vs. counterclockwise rotations showed non-significant differences (LE: p = 0.8125; RE: p = 1.000). In a control experiment we measured rivalry periods for linearly moving RDPs in the four cardinal directions and found no differences in durations amongst these motion types. However, when comparing the rivalry periods between linear and complex motion types, periods were longer for spiral stimuli (p < 0.01). Our results suggest that biases in the representation of different spiral types by MSTd neurons can influence the competitive interactions underlying visual motion binocular rivalry.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".