Abstract
These experiments sought to determine whether meaning influences the predominance of one eye during binocular rivalry. In Experiment 1, observers tried to read meaningful text under conditions in which different text streams were viewed by the two eyes, a situation mimicking the classic dichotic listening paradigm. Dichoptic reading proved impossible even when the text streams were printed in different fonts or when one eye received a 5-sec advantage. Under non-rivalry conditions, the observers were able to read text presented at twice the rate used for dichoptic testing, indicating that cognitive overload does not limit performance under conditions of rivalry. In Experiment 2, observers were required to detect repeated presentations of a probe target within a string of characters presented to one eye. Although this task was easily performed under monocular viewing conditions, it proved difficult when the two eyes received dissimilar character strings. This was true regardless of whether the probed eye viewed nonsense strings, real words, or meaningful text. In a condition designed to encourage semantic processing of one eye’s view, the observers were required to detect animal names as well as to detect the probe target. Performance remained inferior to that measured under monocular conditions. Even the observer’s own name proved insufficient to influence the predominance of one eye under conditions of dichoptic stimulation. When two text strings were physically superimposed and viewed monocularly, essentially no probes were detected, indicating that the failure to see some probes during rivalry reflects a limitation unique to dichoptic viewing. These results contradict theories attributing binocular rivalry to an attentional process that operates on monocular inputs that have received refined analysis. This conclusion may be limited to rival stimuli whose meaning is defined linguistically, not structurally.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Abadi, R. (1976). Induction masking—A study of some inhibitory interactions during dichoptic viewing.Vision Research,16, 269–275.
Anderson, J. D., Bechtoldt, H. P., &Dunlap, G. L. (1978). Binocular integration in line rivalry.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,11, 399–402.
Breese, B. B. (1899). On inhibition.Psychological Monographs,3, 1–65.
Breese, B. B. (1909). Binocular rivalry.Psychological Review,16, 410–415.
Blake, R. (1977). Threshold conditions for binocular rivalry.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,3, 251–257.
Blake, R., &Fox, R. (1974). Adaptation to invisible gratings and the site of binocular rivalry suppression.Nature,249, 488–490.
Corteen, R. S., &Wood, B. (1972). Autonomic responses to shock-associated words in an unattended channel.Journal of Experimental Psychology,94, 308–313.
Creed, R. (1935). Observations on binocular fusion and rivalry.Journal of Physiology,84, 381–392.
Engel, E. (1956). The role of content in binocular resolution.American Journal of Psychology,69, 87–91.
Fahle, M. (1982). Cooperation between different spatial frequencies in binocular rivalry.Biological Cybernetics,44, 27–29.
Fox, R., &Rasche, F. (1969). Binocular rivalry and reciprocal inhibition.Perception & Psychophysics,5, 215–217.
Goldstein, A. G. (1970). Binocular fusion and contour suppression.Perception & Psychophysics,7, 28–32.
Helmholtz, H. von. (1962).Physiological optics (J. P. C. Southall, Trans). New York: Dover. (Original work published 1866)
Holender, D. (1986). Semantic activation without conscious identification.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,9, 1–66.
Hollins, M. (1980). The effect of contrast on the completeness of binocular rivalry.Perception & Psychophysics,27, 550–556.
James, W. (1890).Principles of psychology. New York: Holt.
Lack, L. (1979).The practice of selective attention and the all-or-none nature of attention in dichoptic viewing. Paper presented at the Sixth Experimental Psychology Conference, Canberra, Australia.
Lewis, J. L. (1970). Semantic processing of unattended messages using dichotic listening.Journal of Experimental Psychology,85, 225–228.
Moray, N. (1969).Attention: Selective processes in vision and hearing. London: Hutchinson.
Neisser, U., &Becklen, R. (1975). Selective looking: Attending to visually specified events.Cognitive Psychology,7, 480–494.
Ono, H., Hastorf, A. H., &Osgood, C. E. (1966). Binocular rivalry as a function of incongruity in meaning.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,7, 225–233.
O’Shea, R., &Crassini, B. (1981). Interocular transfer of the motion aftereffect is not reduced by binocular rivalry.Vision Research,21, 801–804.
Rommetveit, R., Toch, H., &Svendsen, D. (1968a). Effects of contingency and contrast contexts on the cognition of words: A study of stereoscopic rivalry.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,9, 138–144.
Rommetveit, R., Toch, H., &Svendsen, D. (1968b). Semantic, syntactic, and associative context effects in a stereoscopic rivalry situation.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,9, 145–149.
Sampson, H., &Horrocks, J. (1967). Binocular rivalry and immediate memory.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,19, 224–231.
Thorndike, E., &Lorge, J. (1944).The teacher’s word book of 30,000 words. New York: Teachers College Press.
Wade, N. J. (1974). The effect of orientation in binocular contour rivalry of real images and afterimages.Perception & Psychophysics,15, 227–232.
Wade, N. J., de Weert, C. M. M., &Swanston, M. T. (1984). Binocular rivalry with moving patterns.Perception & Psychophysics,35, 111–122.
Wade, N. J., &Wenderoth, P. (1978). The influence of colour and contour rivalry on the magnitude of the tilt aftereffect.Vision Research,18, 827–836.
Walker, P. (1978). Binocular rivalry: Central or peripheral selective processes?Psychological Bulletin,85, 376–389.
Zimba, L. D., &Blake, R. (1983). Binocular rivalry and semantic processing: Out of sight, out of mind.Journal of Experimental Psychology,9, 807–815.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This work was supported by NSF Grant BNS 8418731. Portions of these data were presented at the November 1986 Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans, LA.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Blake, R. Dichoptic reading: The role of meaning in binocular rivalry. Perception & Psychophysics 44, 133–141 (1988). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208705
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208705