Effects of interocular grouping demands on binocular rivalry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Binocular rivalry (BR) is a visual phenomenon in which perception alternates between two non-fusible images presented to each eye. Transition periods between dominant and suppressed images are marked by mixed percepts, where participants report fragments of each image being dynamically perceived. Interestingly, BR remains robust even when typical images are subdivided and presented in complementary patches to each eye, a phenomenon termed interocular grouping (IOG). The objective of the present study was to determine if increasing grouping demand in the context of BR changes the perceptual experience of rivalry. In 48 subjects with normal vision, mean dominant and mixed percept durations were recorded for classic BR and IOG conditions with increasing grouping demands from two, four, and six patches. We found that, as grouping demands increased, the duration of mixed periods increased. Indeed, durations of dominant and mixed percepts, as well as percentage of time spent in dominant or mixed state, differed significantly across conditions. However, durations of global dominant percepts remained relatively stable and saturated at about 1.5 seconds, despite the exponential increase in possible mixed combinations. Evidence shows that this saturation followed a nonlinear trend. The data also indicate that grouping across the vertical meridian is slightly more stable than for the horizontal meridian. Finally, individual differences in speed of alternation identified during BR were maintained in all interocular grouping conditions. These results provide new information about binocular visual spatial integration and will be useful for future studies of the underlying neural substrates and models of binocular 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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".