Binocular rivalry (BR) is an intriguing phenomenon that occurs when two different images are presented, one to each eye, resulting in alternation or rivalry between the percepts. The phenomenon has been studied for nearly 200 years, with renewed and intensive investigation over recent decades. The rate of perceptual switching has long been known to vary widely between individuals but to be relatively stable within individuals. A recent twin study demonstrated that individual variation in BR rate is under substantial genetic control, a finding that also represented the first report, using a large study, of genetic contribution for any post-retinal visual processing phenomenon. The twin study had been prompted by earlier work showing BR rate was slow in the heritable psychiatric condition, bipolar disorder (BD). Together, these studies suggested that slow BR may represent an endophenotype for BD, and heralded the advent of modern clinical and genetic studies of rivalry. This new focus has coincided with rapid advances in 3D display technology, but despite such progress, specific development of technology for rivalry research has been lacking. This review therefore compares different display methods for BR research across several factors, including viewing parameters, image quality, equipment cost, compatibility with other investigative methods, subject group, and sample size, with a focus on requirements specific to large-scale clinical and genetic studies. It is intended to be a resource for investigators new to BR research, such as clinicians and geneticists, and to stimulate the development of 3D display technology for advancing interdisciplinary studies of rivalry.

The psychometric properties of a Binocular Rivalry (BR)-based test on a group of 159 participants (57 with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD) aged between 6 and 15 years are presented. Two factors, which explained 56.82% of the variance, were obtained by exploratory factor analysis: (a) Alternations and Duration of exclusive dominances, and (b) Decision time. Reliability was excellent (Cronbach’s α = .834 and .884). The ADHD group showed fewer alternations and longer duration of dominances and decision time than the control group. Correlations between measures of BR, IQ, working memory, and processing speed of the WISC-IV, and ADHD symptoms, assessed by parents and teachers, ranged between low and medium.

Previous research suggests binocular rivalry disrupts extrastriate, but not striate processes, although the locus along the visual pathway at which such disruption first occurs is uncertain. It has been argued that subjective contours arise via a two-stage process in which end-stopped cells feed into orientation-sensitive neurones in V2, and that orientation aftereffects induced with subjective contours are the product of mechanisms similar to those giving rise to real contour aftereffects. If binocular rivalry disrupts the acquisition of subjective contour aftereffects, then it follows from this model that rivalry disrupts processing in V2. Experiments reported here confirm this and provide evidence which suggests binocular rivalry arises through interactions between binocular neurones, rather than via some type of specialized binocular rivalry mechanism.

Previous research suggests that plaid-induced motion aftereffects (MAEs) involve extrastriate mechanisms (Wenderoth et al., 1988). There is evidence also that binocular rivalry occurs beyond VI and that it disrupts the processing of MAEs which are believed to be based upon extrastriate mechanisms (e.g. the spiral MAE) but not MAEs, such as linear MAE induced by a drifting grating, which are thought to arise in striate cortex (Wiesenfelder & Blake, 1990). The logical inference is that binocular rivalry during drifting plaid-induced adaptation should reduce the MAEs which result. We report experiments which confirm this prediction.

This paper presents results from psychophysical experiments on human binocular rivalry in central and peripheral vision. Results show that the incidence of periods of exclusive visibility of a given eye's rival target increased with decreasing target size, and for a given sized target exclusive visibility increased with retinal eccentricity. Control measures confirmed that these results were not attributable solely to reduced peripheral acuity, to Troxler's effect, or to spatial frequency. We computed the minimum-sized stimulus that would lead to a criterion level of exclusive visibility of one or the other eye; this we term the spatial zone of binocular rivalry. The change in estimated size of spatial zones of rivalry with eccentricity compares favorably with estimates of human cortical magnification. We propose a model that assumes concentrically organized zones of rivalry. These zones do not function independently, but instead exhibit a high degree of mutual excitatory cooperativity. The model has multiple solutions for the foveal zone size, but the best fits predict a diameter of 5.3 or 7.3 min of visual angle; these values dovetail nicely with our empirical estimates of the foveal zone size.

The motion after-effect (MAE) lasts longer when the test period does not immediately follow adaptation, a phenomenon called storage. Does storage of the MAE occur if the test target is present but rendered phenomenally invisible owing to the presence of a rival target presented to the other eye during the storage period? Our experiment addressed this question. Following adaptation to a drifting grating, an intervening period preceded testing with a stationary grating. During this period, the adapted eye either viewed the test target immediately or was occluded, and the unadapted eye either viewed a high-contrast rival target or was occluded. Thus four conditions were employed. The duration of the residual MAE was found to be longer for the rivalry condition (grating and rival target viewed) than for the normal MAE condition (grating viewed), and comparable to that in the stored MAE condition (both eyes occluded). Thus, the MAE is stored when the test target is rendered invisible due to binocular rivalry, indicating that a suppressed target is ineffective at promoting decay of the MAE. So while suppression does not prevent information about the adapting grating from reaching the site of generation of the MAE (Lehmkuhle & Fox, 1975), it can prevent information about the test target from reaching the site of the stored MAE. Current models attribute the MAE to reduced responsiveness of direction-selective cortical neurons (Sutherland, 1961; Barlow & Hill, 1963). Thus, storage should reflect a differential return of these adapted cells to preadapted response levels, dependent on postadaptation stimulation. From our results we deduce that storage does not occur at all sites at which motion adaptation occurs. Rather, decay of the MAE is dependent on postadaptation stimulation at higher levels of adaptation, and independent at earlier levels.

This paper presents a modified reciprocal inhibition model for the temporal dynamics of binocular rivalry. The model is based on neurophysiological mechanisms and is derived from human psychophysical data. A simple reciprocal inhibition oscillator may be described with a set of four coupled differential equations with a neurophysiological interpretation. However, such a circuit does not account for some aspects of the temporal behavior of binocular rivalry, including the effects of contrast change on alternation rate and on the magnitudes of changes in duration of the suppressed and dominant phases. To better account for these phenomena, the equations and their simulation are modified to include three new components: (1) presynaptic inhibition of the reciprocal inhibition by the input, (2) the motor delays that occur when a human observer tracks rivalry and (3) a minimum threshold for each neuron's state variable. The result is a much improved fit to psychophysically-obtained data on the temporal behavior of binocular rivalry. Finally, the model is incorporated into a larger model to suggest how rivalry might occur in a network that usually exhibits binocular fusion.

Under dichoptic viewing conditions, rivalrous gratings that differ in both color and form can give the percept of the color from one eye in part of the form in the other eye. This study examined the afterimage following such misbinding of color to form. The first experiment established that afterimages of the misbound percept were seen. Two possible mechanisms for the misbound afterimage are (1) persisting retinal representations that are rivalrous and subsequently resolved to give misbinding, as during rivalrous viewing, and (2) a persisting response from a central neural representation of the misbound percept with the form from one eye and color from the other eye. The results support afterimage formation from a central representation of the misbound percept, not from resolution of rivalrous monocular representations.