Reports of the disappearance of paired orthogonal lines viewed under binocular rivalry may be determined by the categories used to indicate the phenomenal characteristics of the display. Measures derived from logically equivalent categorisations yield consistently different estimates of disappearance. These findings correspond with those previously obtained for afterimages and steady fixation. Adequate control of response methodology is required before conclusions may be drawn regarding the underlying mechanisms of fluctuating visibility.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtkinsonJ, 1972“Visibility of an afterimage in the presence of a second afterimage”Perception and Psychophysics12257–262.
2.
LeveltW J M, 1968On Binocular Rivalry (The Hague: Mouton).
3.
SchuckJ R, 1973“Factors affecting reports of fragmenting visual images”Perception and Psychophysics13382–390.
4.
SwanstonM T, 1979“The effects of verbal meaning and response categorisation on the fragmentation of steadily fixated patterns”Perception8635–646.
5.
SwanstonM TWadeN J, 1981“Consistency of response during steady visual stimulation”Perception10339–349.
6.
WadeN J, 1973“Contour synchrony with binocular rivalry”Perception and Psychophysics13423–425.
7.
WadeN J, 1974“The effect of orientation in binocular rivalry of real images and afterimages”Perception and Psychophysics15227–232.
8.
WadeN J, 1975“Binocular rivalry between single lines viewed as real images and afterimages”Perception and Psychophysics17571–577.
9.
WhittlePBloorD CPocockS, 1968“Some experiments on figural effects in binocular rivalry”Perception and Psychophysics4183–188.
