fMRI Investigation of Monocular Pattern Rivalry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In monocular pattern rivalry, a composite image is shown to both eyes. The patient experiences perceptual alternations in which the two stimulus components alternate in clarity or salience. We used fMRI at 3T to image brain activity while participants perceived monocular rivalry passively or indicated their percepts with a task. The stimulus patterns were left/right oblique gratings, face/house composites, or a nonrivalrous control stimulus that did not support the perception of transparency or image segmentation. All stimuli were matched for luminance, contrast, and color. Compared with the control stimulus, the cortical activation for passive viewing of grating rivalry included dorsal and ventral extrastriate cortex, superior and inferior parietal regions, and multiple sites in frontal cortex. When the BOLD signal for the object rivalry task was compared with the grating rivalry task, a similar whole-brain network was engaged, but with significantly greater activity in extrastriate regions, including V3, V3A, fusiform face area (FFA), and parahippocampal place area (PPA). In addition, for the object rivalry task, FFA activity was significantly greater during face-dominant periods whereas parahippocampal place area activity was greater during house-dominant periods. Our results demonstrate that slight stimulus changes that trigger monocular rivalry recruit a large whole-brain network, as previously identified for other forms of bistability. Moreover, the results indicate that rivalry for complex object stimuli preferentially engages extrastriate cortex. We also establish that even with natural viewing conditions, endogenous attentional fluctuations in monocular pattern rivalry will differentially drive object-category-specific cortex, similar to binocular rivalry, but without complete suppression of the nondominant image.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".