Direct MEG Comparison of Binocular Rivalry and Monocular Pattern Rivalry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Binocular rivalry (BR) requires two non-fusible images independently shown to each eye, but monocular rivalry or pattern rivalry (PR) occurs with the same image presented to both eyes. Periods of alternation experienced during PR typically differ in the strength or clarity of the overlapping components, rather than the complete dominance or suppression of visibility during BR. In this study, we recorded subject’s perceptual reports (N = 48) and MEG brain activity (N=30) while viewing BR or PR. For BR, subjects viewed orthogonal gratings with red in one eye and green in the other. This was compared to a PR condition with identical overlapping red and green gratings, with intersections compatible with the perception of transparency, shown to both eyes (dioptic viewing). For both BR and PR, the red or green gratings always flickered at F1 = 5 or F2 = 6.7 Hz, respectively. This resulted in SSVEP tagging of both eye and stimulus for BR, and tagging of stimulus for PR. Psychophysical findings show that rivalry alternation is slower for PR than BR. Mean duration of dominant or mixed percepts for PR is ~1.5 or 2.5 sec, compared to ~1.8 or 1.1 sec for BR. In fact, BR transition probabilities (between red, green, or mixed) are suggestive of tristability; this is not the case for PR. Overall, individual differences for alternation rate in PR exist and are modestly predicted by BR alternation rates (r-values of 0.4-0.5). MEG data suggests that, for PR, stimulus tagging during perceptual alternations produces strong power at fundamental frequencies as well as substantially greater power at several intermodulation frequencies compared to untagged PR, or tagged BR. Current results illustrate how, in the absence of interocular competition, bistable perception still occurs, but with different dynamics and neural substrates.
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".