Boundary contours are important for representing binocular surfaces, including those in binocular rivalry. Ooi and He (2006, Perception35 581–603) showed that a half-image with a boundary contour defined by abutting gratings predominates in binocular rivalry. We investigated the monocular-boundary-contour mechanism using Kanizsa square-like rivalry displays. In experiment 1, the left half-image had a vertical illusory contour on the right edge while the right half-image had a vertical illusory contour on the left edge. The Kanizsa elements (discs and pacmen) were filled with a 135° grating and placed on a 45°-grating background. When fused, observers experienced a strong predominance for perceiving an illusory rectangle in front of four discs. But this percept was replaced by robust rivalry alternations when the stimulus was manipulated by (i) switching the half-images between eyes, (ii) relocating the pacmen in each half-image to form horizontal illusory contours, or (iii) placing the pacmen diagonally (thus eliminating each monocular illusory contour). Such robust rivalry alternations were similar to those experienced when a 135°-grating disc was in rivalry with a 135°-grating pacman alone on the 45°-grating background (experiment 2). Experiment 3 showed that the relatively stable illusory-rectangle percept in experiment 1 is affected by the alignment of the images in the two eyes, in a manner consistent with adherence to the occlusion constraint in binocular surface formation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlaisD.BlakeR., 1999“Grouping visual features during binocular rivalry”Vision Research394341–4353
2.
BakinJ SNakayamaK.GilbertC D, 2000“Visual responses in monkey areas V1 and V2 to three-dimensional surface configurations”Journal of Neuroscience208188–8198
3.
BlakeR., 1989“A neural theory of binocular rivalry”Psychological Review96145–167
4.
FrisbyJ PMayhewJ E W, 1978“The relationship between apparent depth and disparity in rivalrous-texture stereogram”Perception7661–678
5.
FukudaH.BlakeR., 1992“Spatial interactions in binocular rivalry”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance18362–370
6.
GillamB.SedgwickH., 1996“The interaction of stereopsis and perspective in the perception of depth”Perception25Supplement, 70
7.
GlennersterA.McKeeS P, 1999“Bias and sensitivity of stereo judgements in the presence of a slanted reference plane”Vision Research393057–3069
8.
HeZ JOoiT L, 2000“Perceiving binocular depth with reference to a common surface”Perception281313–1334
9.
HeZ JOoiT L, 2001“Figure/border ownership vs. edge in binocular depth and rivalry”Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science42Supplement, S614
10.
HeringE., 1964Outlines of a Theory of the Light Sense translated into English by HurvichL MJamesonD. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press)
11.
von der HeydtRZhouH.FriedmanH S, 2000“Representation of stereoscopic edges in monkey visual cortex”Vision Research401955–1967
12.
KanizsaG., 1979Organization in Vision: Essays on Gestalt Perception (New York: Praeger)
KovacsI.PapathomasT.YangM.FeherA., 1996“When the brain changes its mind: Interocular grouping during binocular rivalry”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA9315508–15511
15.
LeeS HBlakeR., 2004“A fresh look at interocular grouping during binocular rivalry”Vision Research44983–991
16.
LeeT SNguyenM., 2001“Dynamics of subjective contour formation in early visual cortex”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA981907–1911
17.
McKeeS P, 1983“The spatial requirements for fine stereoacuity”Vision Research23191–198
18.
MitchisonG JMcKeeS P, 1990“Mechanisms underlying the anisotropy of stereoscopic tilt perception”Vision Research301781–1791
19.
NakayamaK.ShimojoS., 1990“Da Vinci stereopsis: Depth and subjective occluding contours from unpaired image points”Vision Research301811–1825
20.
NakayamaK.HeZ JShimojoS., 1995“Visual surface representation: A critical link between lower-level and higher-level vision”, in An Invitation to Cognitive Science: Visual Cognition Eds KosslynS.OshershonD O (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) pp 1–70
21.
NakayamaK.ShimojoS.SilvermanG H, 1989“Stereoscopic depth: Its relation to image segmentation, grouping, and the recognition of occluded objects”Perception1855–68
OoiT LHeZ J, 2003b“On the initiation and spreading of interocular suppression from binocular vertical contours”Journal of Vision3452452a (abstract), http://journalofvision.org/3/9/452/, doi:10.1167/3.9.452
24.
OoiT LHeZ J, 2005“Surface representation and attention modulation mechanisms in binocular rivalry”, in Binocular Rivalry Eds AlaisD.BlakeR. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) pp 117–135
25.
OoiT LHeZ J, 2006“Binocular rivalry and surface-boundary processing”Perception35581–603
26.
O'SheaR PBlakeR., 1987“Depth without disparity in random-dot stereograms”Perception & Psychophysics42205–214
PeterhansE.von der HeydtR, 1989“Mechanisms of contour perception in monkey visual cortex. II. Contours bridging gaps”Journal of Neuroscience91749–1763
29.
QiuF Tvon der HeydtR, 2005“Figure and ground in the visual cortex: V2 combines stereoscopic cues with Gestalt rules”Neuron47155–166
30.
ShimojoS.NakayamaK., 1990“Real world occlusion constraints and binocular rivalry”Vision Research3069–80
31.
SobelK VBlakeR., 2002“How context influences predominance during binocular rivalry”Perception31813–824
32.
SugitaY., 1999“Grouping of image fragments in primary visual cortex”Nature401269–272
33.
XuJ.HeZ JOoiT L, 2006“On the contribution of second-order boundary contour strength to binocular rivalry”Journal of Vision6851, 851a (abstract), http://journalofvision.org/6/6/851/, doi:10.1167/6.6.851
34.
ZhouH.FriedmanH Svon der HeydtR, 2000“Coding of border ownership in monkey visual cortex”Journal of Neuroscience206594–6611
35.
van der ZwanRWenderothP., 1994“Psychophysical evidence for area V2 involvement in the reduction of subjective contour tilt aftereffects by binocular rivalry”Visual Neuroscience11823–830
