Distinct dorsal and ventral streams for binocular rivalry dominance and suppression revealed by magnetoencephalography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Binocular rivalry is an example of bistable visual perception extensively examined in neuroimaging. Magnetoencephalography can track brain responses to phasic visual stimulations of predetermined frequency and phase to advance our understanding of perceptual dominance and suppression in binocular rivalry. We used left and right eye stimuli that flickered at two tagging frequencies to track their respective oscillatory cortical evoked responses. We computed time-resolved measures of coherence to track brain responses phase locked with stimulus frequencies and with respect to the participants' indications of alternations of visual rivalry they experienced. We compared the brain maps obtained to those from a non-rivalrous control replay condition that used physically changing stimuli to mimic rivalry. We found stronger coherence within a posterior cortical network of visual areas during rivalry dominance compared with rivalry suppression and replay control. This network extended beyond the primary visual cortex to several retinotopic visual areas. Moreover, network coherence with dominant percepts in primary visual cortex peaked at least 50 ms prior to the suppressed percept nadir, consistent with the escape theory of alternations. Individual alternation rates were correlated with the rate of change in dominant evoked peaks, but not for the slope of response to suppressed percepts. Effective connectivity measures revealed that dominant (respectively, suppressed) percepts were expressed in dorsal (respectively ventral) streams. We thus demonstrate that binocular rivalry dominance and suppression engage distinct mechanisms and brain networks. These findings advance neural models of rivalry and may relate to more general aspects of selection and suppression in natural vision.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".