Increasing Interocular Grouping Demands during Binocular Rivalry with MEG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Binocular rivalry is a phenomenon where two incompatible images are simultaneously presented, one to each eye, and elicit perceptual alternations between image dominance and suppression. Remarkably, binocular rivalry accommodates interocular grouping so that if portions of two globally coherent images are shown to each eye, subjects still perceive the global pattern far more often than would be expected by chance. In this study, we recorded the subject's perceptual reports (N=48) and MEG brain activity (N=30) while viewing classic rivalry (BR) or rivalry with interocular grouping (IOG). This was compared to conditions with increasing grouping demands; stimuli were divided into 2, 4, or 6 complementary patches shown to each eye. In all cases, participants reported their frequency and durations of dominant or mixed percepts, and stimuli consisted of flickering red or green orthogonal gratings at 5 or 6.7Hz, respectively. This allowed for analysis of tagged fundamental and intermodulation frequencies in the SSVEP with MEG. During BR, subjects perceived one of the two coherent images ~75% of the time, while for IOG, the coherent global percepts were seen at least 40% of the time. Compared to BR, IOG produced weaker MEG power at the fundamental frequencies in early visual cortex. However, IOG produced greater MEG signal beyond early visual cortex. Behavioral data demonstrates that grouping across the vertical image meridian is slightly more robust than across horizontal meridian, and this is supported by differences in MEG topography. Specifically, topography for vertical meridian IOG more closely resembles that obtained for BR. The reduced power for IOG in V1/V2 might be expected from less time spent perceiving/attending a coherent image, but patterns of intermodulation power suggest enhanced binocular integration, consistent with prior evidence from fMRI. We interpret this data with regard to collinearity and the balance of excitation/inhibition between early and later visual areas.
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) | 0.001 | 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".