Meng Xin, Chen Yuzhi, Qian Ning
Center for Neurobiology and Behavior, Columbia University, Annex Room 519, 1051 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10032, USA.
Vision Res. 2004 Jan;44(1):45-55. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2003.08.007.
There is an ongoing debate on whether binocular rivalry involves competition among monocular cells or binocular cells. We investigated this issue psychophysically with two specially designed test stimuli. One test stimulus contained monocular motion signals but greatly reduced binocular motion signals, while the other contained binocular motion signals but no monocular motion signals. For comparison, we also employed a normal rivalrous control containing both monocular and binocular motion signals, and a non-rivalrous flicker-noise control with neither monocular nor binocular motion signals. We found that binocular rivalry for the two test stimuli was significantly reduced compared with the normal rivalrous control, but not completely eliminated compared with the non-rivalrous control. Therefore, both monocular and binocular motion signals appear to contribute to motion rivalry, suggesting that motion rivalry must involve competition among both monocular and binocular cells.
关于双眼竞争是涉及单眼细胞还是双眼细胞之间的竞争，目前仍存在争论。我们使用两个专门设计的测试刺激，从心理物理学角度对这个问题进行了研究。一个测试刺激包含单眼运动信号，但双眼运动信号大幅减少，而另一个包含双眼运动信号，但没有单眼运动信号。为作比较，我们还采用了一个包含单眼和双眼运动信号的正常竞争对照组，以及一个既无单眼也无双眼运动信号的非竞争闪烁噪声对照组。我们发现，与正常竞争对照组相比，两种测试刺激的双眼竞争显著降低，但与非竞争对照组相比并未完全消除。因此，单眼和双眼运动信号似乎都对运动竞争有影响，这表明运动竞争必然涉及单眼和双眼细胞之间的竞争。
