Learning to discriminate the eye-of-origin during continuous flash suppression.

Helmholtz asked whether one could discriminate which eye is the origin of one's perception merely based on the retinal signals. Studies to date showed that participants' ability to tell the eye-of-origin most likely depends on contextual cues. Nevertheless, it has been shown that exogenous attention can enhance performance for monocularly presented stimuli. We questioned whether adults can be trained to discriminate the eye-of-origin of their perceptions and if this ability depends on the strength of the monocular channels. We used attentional feed-forward training to improve the subject's eye-of-origin discrimination performance with voluntary attention. During training, participants received a binocular cue to inform them of the eye-of-origin of an upcoming target. Using continuous flash suppression, we also measured the signal strength of the monocular targets to see any possible modulations related to the cues. We collected confidence ratings from the participants about their eye-of-origin judgements to study in further detail whether metacognition has access to this information. Our results show that, even though voluntary attention did not alter the strength of the monocular channels, eye-of-origin discrimination performance improved following the training. A similar pattern was observed for confidence. The results from the feedforward attentional training and the increase in subjective confidence point towards a high-level decisional mechanism being responsible for the eye-of-origin judgements. We propose that this high-level process is informed by subtle sensory cues such as the differences in luminance or contrast in the two monocular channels.

Measuring the reliability of binocular rivalry.

Binocular rivalry is a widely used tool in sensory and cognitive neuroscience to investigate different aspects of vision and cognition. The dynamics of binocular rivalry (e.g., duration of perceptual dominance phases and mixed percept proportions) differ across individuals; based on rivalry dynamics, it is also possible to calculate an index of ocular dominance (by comparing the perceptual dominance of the images in the two eyes). In this study, we investigated the reliability of binocular rivalry dynamics using different methods for dichoptic stimulation and different rivalry stimuli. For the three main indices we defined (ocular dominance, phase durations and mixed percept proportions), we found a high test-retest reliability across sessions. Moreover, the test-retest reliability of the ocular dominance index was predictable from its internal consistency, supporting its stability over time. Phase durations and mixed percept proportions, in contrast, had worse test-retest reliability than expected based on internal consistency, indicating that these parameters are susceptible to state-dependent changes. Our results support the use of the ocular dominance index and binocular rivalry in the measurement of sensory eye dominance and its plasticity, but advise caution when investigating the association between phase durations or mixed percepts and stable characteristics like psychological traits or disorders.

Different Forms of Plasticity Interact in Adult Humans.

Neuroplasticity is maximal during development and declines in adulthood, especially for sensory cortices. On the other hand, the motor and prefrontal cortices retain plasticity throughout the lifespan. This difference has led to a modular view of plasticity in which different brain regions have their own plasticity mechanisms that do not depend or translate on others. Recent evidence shows that visual and motor plasticity share common neural mechanisms (e.g., GABAergic inhibition), indicating a possible link between these different forms of plasticity, however, the interaction between visual and motor plasticity has never been tested directly. Here, we show that when visual and motor plasticity are elicited at the same time in adult humans, visual plasticity is impaired, while motor plasticity is spared. Moreover, simultaneous activation of working memory and visual plasticity also leads to impairment in visual plasticity. These unilateral interactions between visual, working memory, and motor plasticity demonstrate a clear link between these three forms of plasticity. We conclude that local neuroplasticity in separate systems might be regulated globally, to preserve overall homeostasis in the brain.