Online research in philosophy

The relationship between brain activity and conscious visual experience is central to our understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying perception. Binocular rivalry, where monocular stimuli compete for perceptual dominance, has been previously used to dissociate the constant stimulus from the varying percept. We report here fMRI results from humans experiencing binocular rivalry under a dichoptic stimulation paradigm that consisted of two drifting random dot patterns with different motion coherence. Each pattern had also a different color, which both enhanced rivalry and was used for reporting which of the two patterns was visible at each time. As the perception of the subjects alternated between coherent motion and motion noise, we examined the effect that these alternations had on the strength of the MR signal throughout the brain. Our results demonstrate that motion perception is able to modulate the activity of several of the visual areas which are known to be involved in motion processing. More specifically, in addition to area V5 which showed the strongest modulation, a higher activity during the perception of motion than during the perception of noise was also clearly observed in areas V3A and LOC, and less so in area V3. In previous studies, these areas had been selectively activated by motion stimuli but whether their activity reflects motion perception or not remained unclear; here we show that they are involved in motion perception as well. The present findings therefore suggest a lack of a clear distinction between ?processing? versus ?perceptual? areas in the brain, but rather that the areas involved in the processing of a specific visual attribute are also part of the neuronal network that is collectively responsible for its perceptual representation.

Nikos K. Logothetis University of Manchester, Manchester, UK In binocular rivalry, the visual percept alternates stochastically between two dichoptically presented stimuli. It is established that both processes related to the eye of origin and binocular, stimulus-related processes account for these fluctuations in conscious perception. Here we studied how their relative contributions vary over time. We applied brief disruptions to rivalry displays, concurrent with an optional eye swap, at varying time intervals after one stimulus became visible (dominant). We found that early in a dominance phase the dominant eye determined the percept by stabilizing its own contribution (regardless of the stimulus), with an additional yet weaker stabilizing contribution of the stimulus (regardless of the eye). Their stabilizing contributions declined in parallel with time so that late in a dominance phase the stimulus (and in some cases also the eye-based) contribution turned negative, favoring a perceptual (or ocular) switch. Our findings show that depending on the time, first processes related to the eye of origin and then those related to the stimulus can have a greater net influence on the stability of the conscious percept. Their co-varying change may be due to feedback from image- to eyeof-origin representations.

This is a brief account of a theory of presentiment/retrocausation in the context of a proposed binocular rivalry experiment. According to orthodox (classical or quantum mechanical) physics there can be no retrocausal effects. In order to accommodate such effects one must go beyond/outside orthodox theories. The simplest way to modify QM in a way that would permit such effects is to accept the hypothesis of Eccles (1987) that mental involvement (mental effort or emotion) can alter the orthodox statistical weighting factors associated with the observed outcomes of our experimental probing actions.

From the evolutionary viewpoint, animals need to monitor the surrounding environment and capture salient features, such as motion, for survival. The visual system is highly developed for monitoring a wide area of visual field and capturing such salient features. In humans and primates, there is a wide binocular field, suggesting a necessity of integrating the images from the two eyes. Binocular rivalry [R. Blake, A neural theory of binocular rivalry, Psychol. Rev. 96 (1989) 145–167; R. Blake, N.K. Logothetis, Visual competition, Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 3 (2002) 13–21], where incompatible inputs from the two eyes compete to emerge in the subject’s visual percept, has been shown to exhibit highly adaptive behavior [I. Kovacs, T.V. Parathomas, M. Yang, A. Feher, When the brain changes its mind: interocular grouping during binocular rivalry. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 93 (1996) 15508–15511; N.K. Logothetis, Single units and conscious vision, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 353 (1998) 1801–1818]. Here we investigated the spatio-temporal dynamics of the ocular dominance pattern in binocular rivalry under conditions where conflicting salient features were presented in a temporally varying manner. We found a striking example of the detailed structure of the dominance wave propagation, by using a spatio-temporal sampling method. The data show in detail the ability of the visual system to dynamically adapt to the changing stimuli in the context of the massively parallel visual field. We show by model prediction that the globally coherent dominance change in the presence of multiple stimuli can be explained by a mechanism based on local saliency comparison. © 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

In addressing thescientific study of consciousness, Crick and Koch state, It is probable that at any moment some active neuronal processes in your head correlate with consciousness, while others do not: what is the difference between them? (1998, p. 97). Evidence from electrophysiological and brain-imaging studies of binocular rivalry supports the premise of this statement and answers to some extent, the question posed. I discuss these recent developments and outline the rationale and experimental evidence for the interhemispheric switch hypothesis of perceptual rivalry. According to this model, the perceptual alternations of rivalry reflect hemispheric alternations, suggesting that visual consciousness of rivalling stimuli may be unihemispheric at any one time (Miller et al., 2000). However, in this paper, I suggest that interhemispheric switching could involve alternating unihemispheric attentional selection of neuronal processes for access to visual consciousness. On this view, visual consciousness during rivalry could be bi hemispheric because the processes constitutive of attentional selection may be distinct from those constitutive of visual consciousness. This is a special case of the important distinction between the neuronal correlates and constitution of visual consciousness.

Binocular rivalry provides a useful situation for studying the relation between the temporal flow of conscious experience and the temporal dynamics of neural activity. After proposing a phenomenological framework for understanding temporal aspects of consciousness, we review experimental research on multistable perception and binocular rivalry, singling out various methodological, theoretical, and empirical aspects of this research relevant to studying the flow of experience. We then review an experimental study from our group explicitly concerned with relating the temporal dynamics of rivalrous experience to the temporal dynamics of cortical activity. Drawing attention to the importance of dealing with ongoing activity and its inherent changing nature at both phenomenological and neurodynamical levels, we argue that the notions of recurrence and variability are pertinent to understanding rivalry in particular and the flow of experience in general.

We investigated binocular rivalry in the twocerebral hemispheres of callosotomized(split-brain) observers. We found that rivalryoccurs for complex stimuli in split-brainobservers, and that it is similar in the twohemispheres. This poses difficulties for twotheories of rivalry: (1) that rivalry occursbecause of switching of activity between thetwo hemispheres, and (2) that rivalry iscontrolled by a structure in the rightfrontoparietal cortex. Instead, similar rivalryfrom the two hemispheres is consistent with atheory that its mechanism is low in the visualsystem, at which each hemisphere conducts asimilar analysis of its half of visual space.

A midbrain neural basis for the perceptualoscillations of binocular rivalry is suggestedon the basis of fMRI studies of rivalry andinferences from the properties of rivalry thatcannot be explained from the known propertiesof primary visual cortical (V1) neurons. Therivalry switch is proposed to activatehomologous areas of each cerebral hemispherealternately, by means of a bistable oscillatorcircuit that straddles the midline of theventral tegmentum. This bistable oscillatoroperates at the same slow rate that ischaracteristic of perceptual rivalryalternations. Whilst attempting to divert thepresent preoccupation with cortical mechanismsfor rivalry, the new proposal integrates manycortical areas, in keeping with recent evidencethat binocular rivalry involves widespreadareas of the hemispheres. By linking rivalry tointerhemispheric switching mechanisms in thisway, the new proposal for the switch makes theprediction that binocular rivalry will besubject to high level influences such as moodand motivation. These predictions are beingfulfilled, with rivalry playing an increasingrole in the diagnosis and understanding if mooddisorders, schizophrenia and other psychiatricconditions.

The neural basis of binocular rivalry has beenthe subject of vigorous debate. Do discrepantmonocular patterns rival for awareness becauseof neural competition among patternrepresentations or monocular channels? In thisarticle, I briefly review psychophysical andneurophysiological evidence pertaining to boththeories and discuss important new neuroimagingdata which reveal that rivalry is fullyresolved in monocular visual cortex. These newfindings strongly suggest that interocularcompetition mediates binocular rivalry and thatV1 plays an important role in the selection ofconscious visual information. They furthersuggest that rivalry is not a unitaryphenomenon. Interocular competition may fullyaccount for binocular rivalry whereas aseparate mechanism involving patterncompetition likely accounts for monocular andstimulus rivalry.