Search

The pupil provides a rich, non-invasive measure of the neural bases of perception and cognition, and has been of particular value in uncovering the role of arousal-linked neuromodulation, which alters both cortical processing and pupil size. But pupil size is subject to a multitude of influences, which complicates unique interpretation. We measured pupils of observers experiencing perceptual multistability -- an ever-changing subjective percept in the face of unchanging but inconclusive sensory input. In separate conditions the endogenously generated perceptual changes were either task-relevant or not, allowing a separation between perception-related and task-related pupil signals. Perceptual changes were marked by a complex pupil response that could be decomposed into two components: a dilation tied to task execution and plausibly indicative of an arousal-linked noradrenaline surge, and an overlapping constriction tied to the perceptual transient and plausibly a marker of altered visual cortical representation. Constriction, but not dilation, amplitude systematically depended on the time interval between perceptual changes, possibly providing an overt index of neural adaptation. These results show that the pupil provides a simultaneous reading on interacting but dissociable neural processes during perceptual multistability, and suggest that arousal-linked neuromodulator release shapes action but not perception in these circumstances.

Although binocular rivalry is different from other perceptually bistable phenomena in requiring interocular conflict, it also shares numerous features with those phenomena. This raises the question of whether, and to what extent, the neural bases of binocular rivalry and other bistable phenomena overlap. Here we examine this question using an individual-differences approach. In a first experiment, observers reported perception during four binocular rivalry tasks that differed in the features and retinal locations of the stimuli used. Perceptual dominance durations were highly correlated when compared between stimuli that differed in location only. Correlations were substantially weaker, however, when comparing stimuli comprised of different features. Thus, individual differences in binocular-rivalry perception partly reflect a feature-specific factor that is not shared among all variants of binocular rivalry. Our second experiment again included several binocular rivalry variants, but also a different form of bistability: moving plaid rivalry. Correlations in dominance durations between binocular rivalry variants that differed in feature content were again modest. Moreover, and surprisingly, correlations between binocular rivalry and moving plaid rivalry were of similar magnitude. This indicates a second, more general, factor underlying individual differences in binocular rivalry perception: one that is shared across binocular rivalry and moving plaid rivalry. We propose that the first, feature-specific factor corresponds to feature-tuned mechanisms involved in the treatment of interocular conflict, whereas the second, general factor corresponds to mechanisms involved in representing surfaces. These latter mechanisms would operate at a binocular level and be central to both binocular rivalry and other forms of bistability.

When the two eyes’ processing streams meet in visual cortex, two things can happen: sufficiently similar monocular inputs are combined into a fused representation, whereas markedly different inputs engage in rivalry. Interestingly, the emergence of rivalry appears to require attention. Withdrawing attention causes the alternating monocular dominance that characterizes rivalry to cease, apparently allowing both monocular signals to be processed simultaneously. What happens to these signals in this case, however, remains something of a mystery; are they fused into an integrated representation? In a set of experiments, we show this not to be the case: visual aftereffects are consistent with the simultaneous yet separate presence of two segregated monocular representations, rather than a joint representation. These results provide evidence that dichoptic vision without attention prompts a third and previously unknown mode, where both eyes’ inputs receive equal processing, but escape interocular fusion.