Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T04:09:51.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Binocular rivalry between identical retinal stimuli with an induced color difference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2008

SANG WOOK HONG*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee Departments of Psychology and Ophthalmology & Visual Science, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
STEVEN K. SHEVELL
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychology and Ophthalmology & Visual Science, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Sang Wook Hong, Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt Vision Research Center, Vanderbilt University, 405 Wilson Hall, 111 21stAvenue South, Nashville, TN 37203. E-mail: sang.w.hong@vanderbilt.edu

Abstract

An open question in color rivalry is whether alternation between two colors is caused by a difference in receptoral stimulation or a difference in the neural representation of color appearance. This question was examined with binocular rivalry between physically identical lights that differed in appearance due to chromatic induction. Perceptual alternation was measured between gratings of the same chromaticity; each one was presented within a different patterned surround that caused the gratings, one to each eye, to appear unequal in hue because of chromatic induction. The gratings were presented dichoptically with binocular disparity so the rivalrous gratings appeared in front of the surround. Perceptual alternation in hue was found for the two physically identical chromaticities. Stereoscopic depth also was perceived, corroborating binocular neural combination despite color rivalry (Treisman, 1962). The results show that color rivalry is resolved after color-appearance shifts caused by chromatic context, and that color rivalry does not require competing unequal cone excitations from the rivalrous stimuli.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable