Online research in philosophy

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.

What are the neural correlates of conscious visual awareness? Tackling this question requires contrasting neural correlates of stimulus processing culminating in visual awareness with neural correlates of stimulus processing unaccompanied by awareness. To contrast these two neural states, one must be able to erase an otherwise visible stimulus from awareness. This paper describes and critiques visual phenomena involving dissociation of physical stimulation and conscious awareness: degraded stimulation, visual masking, visual crowding, bistable figures, binocular rivalry, motion-induced blindness, inattentional blindness, change blindness and attentional blink. While no single strategy stands above the others, those producing changing visual awareness despite invariant physical stimulation are clearly preferable.

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.