1 edition of Time Course and Stimulus Specificity of Interocular Suppression found in the catalog.
Time Course and Stimulus Specificity of Interocular Suppression
by Storming Media
Written in English
|The Physical Object|
We explored the time course of surround suppression and found clear evidence for two distinct mechanisms: one strong, transient, and largely monocular, the other weaker, sustained, and binocular. We measured detection thresholds for a Gabor target at 8 deg eccentricity surrounded by a large annulus of matching spatial frequency and orientation. Promising approaches could be to systematically vary the properties of the mask and/or the target stimulus that are most relevant for the depth of interocular suppression, such as stimulus contrast and spatial frequency (Yang and Blake, ), or to adjust the suppression threshold individually to a point where stimulus power is as high as.
One was a white Landolt-C-like stimulus (radius °, ring width °) with a °-wide gap on the top, bottom, left, or right of the ring, hereinafter referred to as stimulus “C.”. The question whether multisensory integration can be achieved for a stimulus suppressed from visual awareness through interocular suppression has recently been readdressed in studies in which continuous flash suppression (CFS) was used as the interocular suppression paradigm (Tsuchiya & Koch, ; Tsuchiya, Koch, Gilroy, & Blake, ). CFS is.
Interocular suppression plays an important role in the visual deficits experienced by individuals with amblyopia. Most neurophysiological and functional MRI studies of suppression in amblyopia have used dichoptic stimuli that overlap within the visual field. However, suppression of the amblyopic eye also occurs when the dichoptic stimuli do not overlap, a phenomenon we refer to as long-range. Experience-driven neuronal plasticity allows the brain to adapt its functional connectivity to recent sensory input. Here we use binocular rivalry , an experimental paradigm in which conflicting images are presented to the individual eyes, to demonstrate plasticity in the neuronal mechanisms that convert visual information from two separated retinas into single perceptual experiences.
Grazing behavior of heifers under short-duration grazing
Sermons on Our Lord Jesus Christ and on His Blessed Mother
Constitutional Democracy in Africa. Vol. 4. Forms of Government (Constitutional Democracy in Africa)
Agrarian reform in Colombia
Group recreation activities as a therapeutic variable in the rehabilitation of institutionalized youthful male offenders
The Heart of Midlothian Football Club
Stimulus speciﬁcity in spatially-extended interocular suppression David F. Nichols*, Hugh R. Wilson Centre for Vision Research, York University, Toronto, Ont., Canada M3J 1P3 article info Article history: Received 11 February Received in revised form 1 June Keywords: Interocular suppression Binocular rivalry Binocular fusion.
TIME COURSE AND STIMULUS SPECIFICITY OF INTEROCULAR SUPPRESSION. By and J. Bruce Baldwin and J. Bruce Baldwin. Abstract. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data Author: and J.
Bruce Baldwin and J. Bruce Baldwin. The target stimulus viewed by the other eye was a counter-phase flickering, horizontal Gabor patch (° × °grating + Gaussian envelope SD = °) the spatial frequency of which was c/degree; the pattern flickered in counterphase (Levinson and Sekuler, ) at 1 spatial position of the Gabor patch was precisely situated so that the pattern’s zero crossing was located at Cited by: By manipulating the contrasts of the to-be-tested stimulus and masks, the suppression time can be controlled in order to sustain suppression from seconds to minutes (Tsuchiya & Koch, ).
The time courses of interocular suppression are different and heterogeneous in amblyopic subjects (de Belsunce & Sireteanu, ).
In the present study, we found that, in normal observers. The interocular suppression was size specific: VEP amplitude became progressively smaller as the check size of the suppressing stimulus approached that of the test stimulus (12′ or 35′ of arc) and was smallest when both eyes were stimulated by the same check size.
Interocular suppression was reflected to a lesser degree in the RT data. Breakthrough time in bCFS has been interpreted by some authors as indicating unconscious processing associated with a specific stimulus feature (Salomon et al., ; Stein & Sterzer, ).
Our. A typical trial is illustrated in Fig. directly compare the depth of suppression evoked by BR with that evoked by CFS, a two-alternative forced choice (2-AFC) probe detection paradigm was used to quantify the contrast increment required to break the suppression (Fox and Check,Fox and Check,Tsuchiya et al., ).At the beginning of each trial the participant was required to.
Time Course and Stimulus Specificity of Interocular Suppression This is a AIR FORCE INST OF TECH WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB OH report procured by the Pentagon and made available for public release.
It has been reproduced in the best form available to the Pentagon. In patients with anisometropic or strabismic amblyopia, interocular suppression can be minimized by presenting high contrast stimulus elements to the amblyopic eye and lower contrast elements to the fellow eye.
This suggests a structurally intact. Interocular suppression plays an important role in the visual deficits experienced by individuals with amblyopia.
Most neurophysiological and functional MRI studies of suppression in amblyopia. This time course may be presumed to reflect the temporal sequence in which information contained in the stimulus is processed.
The present paper is primarily directed toward a better understanding of the time course of information processing specific to the size (spatial frequency) and orientation of the elements of visual stimuli. The suppression exerted by the masks on the target presented to the other eye typically lasts for seconds, and the time it takes for the stimulus to break through the interocular suppression into awareness is used as a measure of the priority it receives to access visual awareness (Jiang et al.,Mudrik et al.,Sklar et al., De Belsunce S, Sireteanu R.
The time course of interocular suppression in normal and amblyopic subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci ; Lagrèze WD, Sireteanu R. Two-dimensional spatial distortions in human strabismic amblyopia. Vision Res ; Lagrèze WD, Sireteanu R.
Verzerrte Formwahrnehmung bei. specific contrast ratio (or the balance point), depending on the observer’s binocular functions. This test was conducted on a control group (n=23) having normal vision and a strabismic amblyopic group (n=10). In addition, a variation of this test was designed with interocular luminance (rather than.
a time while the other stimulus is invisible due to interocular suppression. When both stimuli are equally potent in competing for awareness, perception alternates spontaneously. In addition, our previous psychophysical findings as well as those of the current Experiment 2 have led us to hypothesize that the V2 border ownership neurons play a broader role in mediating interocular suppression to represent a global binocular surface, by integrating the often times ambiguous information from the two eyes (Ooi and He, These results indicate that non-semantic perceptual stimulus congruency (i.e.
color) under interocular suppression did not conclusive yield an interference effect on target response in. a, Viewing ts maintained fixation on a reference point while viewing a flickering checkerboard pattern (stimulus size 8°, check.
Sasaki, H. & Gyoba, J. Selective attention to stimulus features modulates interocular suppression. Percept – () Article Google Scholar.
Currently, little is known about the site and mechanisms of eye-specific suppression during binocular rivalry. The earliest stage after the retina at which differential eye-specific modulation.According to conventional accounts of binocular rivalry, the alternation is due to interocular suppression, mediated by reciprocal inhibitory interactions among monocular neurons (1–5).The common theme of all these models is the notion that the neuronal mechanisms of the eye that receives the temporarily dominant percept suppress the corresponding mechanisms of the other eye at.
The interocular suppression begins as early as 80 msec upon stimulus onset. Moreover, the suppression magnitude is larger when the MBC disc is defined by orientation difference rather than phase-shift, revealing the suppression caused by .