Stimulus dependence of neural sites for binocular rivalry

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.1766

Abstract

Abstract:

Whether the neural sites of binocular rivalry flexibly change with stimulus properties is a central question in this field and in consciousness research, yet it has long lacked causal evidence. Using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to separately interfere with the occipital lobe, right parietal lobe, left parietal lobe, and prefrontal cortex, we measured eye dominance strength and perceptual alternation rate under two stimulus conditions: orthogonal gratings and face/house images. The results revealed a stable stimulus-dependent pattern: competition for feature-level stimuli (gratings) more heavily involved the occipital lobe (anodal stimulation significantly reduced eye dominance strength) and the right parietal lobe (anodal stimulation reduced eye dominance strength, while cathodal stimulation increased perceptual alternation rate); competition for object-level stimuli (faces/houses) more heavily involved the prefrontal cortex (anodal stimulation reduced eye dominance strength) and the left parietal lobe (both anodal and cathodal stimulation reduced eye dominance strength). This study provides causal evidence that the neural sites of binocular rivalry are stimulus-dependent, revealing their flexible recruitment mechanism, and advances the hybrid model from a descriptive static multi-site framework to a predictive flexible-recruitment framework.

Key words: binocular rivalry, neural sites, tDCS, stimulus dependence, flexible configuration mechanism

DONG Bo, XIA Zuyu, ZHANG Ming. (2026). Stimulus dependence of neural sites for binocular rivalry. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 58(9), 1766-1780.

Figures/Tables 5

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental stimuli and procedure.
Note: (a) A participant wearing the HD-tDCS electrode cap, viewing a gammacorrected monitor at a distance of 89.90 cm through a planar stereoscope. (b) Visual stimuli: Experiments 1~4 used gratings (1°, 3 cpd, 45°/135°); Experiments 5~8 used face/house images (6°). The red dot indicates the fixation point. (c) Experimental procedure: practice (5 min) → electrode preparation (impedance < 5 kΩ) → pre-stimulation (i.e., tolerance test; 30 s, 1.00 mA) → formal experiment (approx. 20 min) → rest. Cathodal or anodal stimulation sessions were conducted on separate days (order counterbalanced); sham stimulation could be performed on the same day as anodal/cathodal stimulation (but always preceding it) or on a separate day. (d) 4×1 ring HD-tDCS electrode configuration: the centre electrode (red) was placed at Oz (occipital lobe, Experiments 1/5), P4 (right parietal lobe, Experiments 2/6), P3 (left parietal lobe, Experiments 3/7), and Fz (frontal lobe, Experiments 4/8), with surrounding return electrodes (blue) arranged around them. Electrode positions followed the international 10-10 system. Colour figures are available in the electronic version; the same applies to subsequent figures

Table 1 Means and standard errors of eye dominance strength and perceptual alternation rate for Experiments 1~8.

Experiment	Eye dominance strength			Perceptual alternation rate
Experiment	Anodal	Cathodal	Sham	Anodal	Cathodal	Sham
Exp 1	3.20 ± 2.37	7.81 ± 2.37	9.03 ± 1.71	0.33 ± 0.02	0.40 ± 0.05	0.38 ± 0.04
Exp 2	6.08 ± 1.52	7.50 ± 1.49	9.95 ± 1.47	0.29 ± 0.03	0.34 ± 0.04	0.30 ± 0.03
Exp 3	10.10 ± 1.67	11.03 ± 2.64	10.13 ± 1.86	0.45 ± 0.05	0.47 ± 0.06	0.42 ± 0.04
Exp 4	6.49 ± 1.64	5.80 ± 1.91	7.64 ± 1.36	0.42 ± 0.04	0.42 ± 0.06	0.41 ± 0.04
Exp 5	8.30 ± 1.47	7.57 ± 1.98	8.81 ± 1.59	0.23 ± 0.03	0.23 ± 0.03	0.22 ± 0.03
Exp 6	5.56 ± 1.71	4.13 ± 1.21	5.24 ± 1.13	0.35 ± 0.04	0.33 ± 0.03	0.31 ± 0.03
Exp 7	5.26 ± 1.27	5.15 ± 1.06	7.22 ± 1.13	0.24 ± 0.03	0.26 ± 0.03	0.24 ± 0.03
Exp 8	2.79 ± 0.89	4.56 ± 0.84	5.27 ± 0.76	0.25 ± 0.04	0.25 ± 0.04	0.24 ± 0.03

Figure 2. Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over different brain regions on binocular rivalry with grating stimuli.
Note: (a) Experiment 1: intervention over the occipital lobe; (b) Experiment 2: intervention over the right parietal lobe; (c) Experiment 3: intervention over the left parietal lobe; (d) Experiment 4: intervention over the frontal lobe. The left y-axis represents eye dominance strength, defined as the difference between the dominance duration of the dominant eye and that of the non-dominant eye (unit: seconds). The right y-axis represents perceptual alternation rate, defined as the number of perceptual state switches per unit time (unit: alternations per second). On the x-axis, Anodal denotes the anodal stimulation condition, Cathodal denotes the cathodal stimulation condition, and Sham denotes the sham (placebo) condition. Significance markers: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01; post-hoc comparisons were performed using paired-samples t-tests with Holm correction for multiple comparisons. Bars represent group means under each condition; error bars indicate the standard error of the mean (SE). Scatter points represent individual participant data.

Figure 3. Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over different brain regions on binocular rivalry with face/house stimuli.
Note: (a) Experiment 5: intervention over the occipital lobe; (b) Experiment 6: intervention over the right parietal lobe; (c) Experiment 7: intervention over the left parietal lobe; (d) Experiment 8: intervention over the frontal lobe. The left y-axis represents eye dominance strength, defined as the difference between the dominance duration of the dominant eye and that of the non-dominant eye (unit: seconds). The right y-axis represents perceptual alternation rate, defined as the number of perceptual state switches per unit time (unit: alternations per second). On the x-axis, Anodal denotes the anodal stimulation condition, Cathodal denotes the cathodal stimulation condition, and Sham denotes the sham (placebo) condition. Significance markers: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01; post-hoc comparisons were performed using paired-samples t-tests with Holm correction for multiple comparisons. Bars represent group means under each condition; error bars indicate the standard error of the mean (SE). Scatter points represent individual participant data.

Table 2 Cross-experiment comparison of effect sizes.

Indicator type	Brain region	Anodal vs. Sham (Cohen’s d [95% CI for mean difference])		Cathodal vs. Sham (Cohen’s d [95% CI for the mean difference])
Indicator type	Brain region	Gratings	Faces/Houses	Gratings	Faces/Houses
Eye dominance strength	Occipital lobe	?0.82[?9.18, ?2.49]	?0.12[?2.63, 1.60]	?0.15[?5.01, 2.57]	?0.25[?3.71, 1.23]
	Right parietal lobe	?0.73[?6.35, ?1.39]	0.07[?1.95, 2.60]	?0.44[?5.05, 0.15]	?0.28[?2.96, 0.75]
	Left parietal lobe	?0.01[?2.09, 2.01]	?0.56[?3.61, ?0.31]	0.12[?2.50, 4.30]	?0.63[?3.63, ?0.53]
	Frontal lobe	?0.21[?3.58, 1.28]	?0.64[?4.30, ?0.66]	?0.28[?4.74, 1.06]	?0.17[?2.73, 1.30]
Perceptual alternation rate	Occipital lobe	?0.36[?0.13, 0.02]	0.15[?0.02, 0.03]	0.09[?0.05, 0.08]	0.23[?0.01, 0.03]
	Right parietal lobe	?0.05[?0.04, 0.03]	0.59[0.01, 0.06]	0.60[0.01, 0.08]	0.25[?0.01, 0.05]
	Left parietal lobe	0.24[?0.03, 0.10]	0.03[?0.04, 0.04]	0.36[?0.02, 0.12]	0.32[?0.01, 0.05]
	Frontal lobe	0.06[?0.04, 0.05]	0.10[?0.02, 0.03]	0.05[?0.06, 0.08]	0.35[?0.01, 0.03]

References 50

[1]	Abuleil D., McCulloch D., & Thompson B. (2021). Visual cortex cTBS increases mixed percept duration while a-tDCS has no effect on binocular rivalry. PLoS One, 16(2), e0239349. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239349 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239349 URL
[2]	Alais D., & Melcher D. (2007). Strength and coherence of binocular rivalry depends on shared stimulus complexity. Vision Research, 47(2), 269-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2006.09.003 URL pmid: 17049579
[3]	Andrews T. J., & Purves D. (1997). Similarities in normal and binocularly rivalrous viewing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94(18), 9905-9908. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.18. 9905 doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.18.9905 URL
[4]	Antal A., Kincses T. Z., Nitsche M. A., Bartfai O., & Paulus W. (2004). Excitability changes induced in the human primary visual cortex by transcranial direct current stimulation: Direct electrophysiological evidence. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 45(2), 702-707. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.03-0688
[5]	Bjekić J., Čolić M. V., Živanović M., Milanović S. D., & Filipović S. R. (2019). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over parietal cortex improves associative memory. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 157, 114-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm. 2018.12.007 doi: S1074-7427(18)30283-1 URL pmid: 30553021
[6]	Blake R. (1989). A neural theory of binocular rivalry. Psychological Review, 96(1), 145-167. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.1.145 doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.96.1.145 URL pmid: 2648445
[7]	Blake R., & Logothetis N. K. (2002). Visual competition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(1), 13-21. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn701 doi: 10.1038/nrn701 URL pmid: 11823801
[8]	Blake R., Sobel K. V., & Gilroy L. A. (2003). Visual motion retards alternations between conflicting perceptual interpretations. Neuron, 39(5), 869-878. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00495-1 URL pmid: 12948452
[9]	Blake R., Tadin D., Sobel K. V., Raissian T. A., & Chong S. C. (2006). Strength of early visual adaptation depends on visual awareness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(12), 4783-4788. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0509634103 doi: 10.1073/pnas.0509634103 URL
[10]	Brascamp J., Sterzer P., Blake R., & Knapen T. (2018). Multistable perception and the role of the frontoparietal cortex in perceptual inference. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 77-103. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010417-085944 doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010417-085944 URL pmid: 28854000
[11]	Brascamp J. W., Klink P. C., & Levelt W. J. M. (2015). The ‘laws’ of binocular rivalry: 50 years of Levelt’s propositions. Vision Research, 109(Part A), 20-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2015.02.019 doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2015.02.019 URL
[12]	Carmel D., Walsh V., Lavie N., & Rees G. (2010). Right parietal TMS shortens dominance durations in binocular rivalry. Current Biology, 20(18), R799-R800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010. 07.036
[13]	Carter O. L., & Pettigrew J. D. (2003). A common oscillator for perceptual rivalries? Perception, 32(3), 295-305. https://doi.org/10. 1068/p3472 URL pmid: 12729381
[14]	Chen X., Bobier W., & Thompson B. (2023). Short-term ocular dominance plasticity is not modulated by visual cortex tDCS but increases with length of monocular deprivation. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 6666. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-33823-7 doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-33823-7 URL
[15]	Dieter K. C., & Tadin D. (2011). Understanding attentional modulation of binocular rivalry: A framework based on biased competition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, Article 155. https://doi.org/10. 3389/fnhum.2011.00155
[16]	Faul F., Erdfelder E., Buchner A., & Lang A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using GPower 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods*, 41(4), 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 URL pmid: 19897823
[17]	Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A.-G., & Buchner A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods*, 39(2), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 URL pmid: 17695343
[18]	Frässle S., Sommer J., Jansen A., Naber M., & Einhäuser W. (2014). Binocular rivalry: Frontal activity relates to introspection and action but not to perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(5), 1738-1747. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4403-13.2014 doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4403-13.2014 URL pmid: 24478356
[19]	Hancock S., & Andrews T. J. (2007). The role of voluntary and involuntary attention in selecting perceptual dominance during binocular rivalry. Perception, 36(2), 288-298. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5494 doi: 10.1068/p5494 URL pmid: 17402669
[20]	Kanai R., Bahrami B., & Rees G. (2010). Human parietal cortex structure predicts individual differences in perceptual rivalry. Current Biology, 20(18), 1626-1630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub. 2010.07.027 doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.07.027 URL pmid: 20727757
[21]	Keogh R., Bergmann J., & Pearson J. (2020). Cortical excitability controls the strength of mental imagery. eLife, 9, e50232. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.50232 doi: 10.7554/eLife.50232 URL
[22]	Knapen T., Brascamp J., Pearson J., van Ee R., & Blake R. (2011). The role of frontal and parietal brain areas in bistable perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(28), 10293-10301. https://doi.org/10. 1523/JNEUROSCI.1727-11.2011 doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1727-11.2011 URL pmid: 21753006
[23]	Lack L. C. (1974). Selective attention and the control of binocular rivalry. Perception & Psychophysics, 15(1), 193-200. https://doi. org/10.3758/BF03205846 doi: 10.3758/BF03205846 URL
[24]	Lehky S. R. (1988). An astable multivibrator model of binocular rivalry. Perception, 17(2), 215-228. https://doi.org/10.1068/p170215 URL pmid: 3067209
[25]	Leopold D. A., & Logothetis N. K. (1996). Activity changes in early visual cortex reflect monkeys' percepts during binocular rivalry. Nature, 379(6565), 549-553. https://doi.org/10.1038/379549a0 doi: 10.1038/379549a0 URL
[26]	Logothetis N. K., Leopold D. A., & Sheinberg D. L. (1996). What is rivalling during binocular rivalry? Nature, 380(6575), 621-624. https://doi.org/10.1038/380621a0 doi: 10.1038/380621a0 URL
[27]	Logothetis N. K., & Schall J. D. (1989). Neuronal correlates of subjective visual perception. Science, 245(4919), 761-763. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2772635 URL pmid: 2772635
[28]	Lumer E. D., Friston K. J., & Rees G. (1998). Neural correlates of perceptual rivalry in the human brain. Science, 280(5371), 1930-1934. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.280.5371.1930 doi: 10.1126/science.280.5371.1930 URL pmid: 9632390
[29]	Lumer E. D., & Rees G. (1999). Covariation of activity in visual and prefrontal cortex associated with subjective visual perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96(4), 1669-1673. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.4.1669 doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.4.1669 URL
[30]	Manojlović M., Bjekić J., Purić D., & Filipović S. R. (2025). High-density theta oscillatory-modulated tDCS over the parietal cortex for targeted memory enhancement. Clinical Neurophysiology, 170, 80-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2024.12.004 doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2024.12.004 URL pmid: 39700630
[31]	Miller S. M., Liu G. B., Ngo T. T., Hooper G., Riek S., Carson R. G., & Pettigrew J. D. (2000). Interhemispheric switching mediates perceptual rivalry. Current Biology, 10(7), 383-392. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0960-9822(00)00416-4 doi: 10.1016/S0960-9822(00)00416-4 URL
[32]	Pearson J., & Brascamp J. (2008). Sensory memory for ambiguous vision. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(9), 334-341. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.05.006 doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.05.006 URL pmid: 18684661
[33]	Pearson J., Tadin D., & Blake R. (2007). The effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation on visual rivalry. Journal of Vision, 7(7), 2. https://doi.org/10.1167/7.7.2
[34]	Polanía R., Nitsche M. A., & Ruff C. C. (2018). Studying and modifying brain function with non-invasive brain stimulation. Nature Neuroscience, 21(2), 174-187. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-017- 0054-4 doi: 10.1038/s41593-017-0054-4 URL pmid: 29311747
[35]	Polonsky A., Blake R., Braun J., & Heeger D. J. (2000). Neuronal activity in human primary visual cortex correlates with perception during binocular rivalry. Nature Neuroscience, 3(11), 1153-1159. https://doi.org/10.1038/80676 doi: 10.1038/80676 URL pmid: 11036274
[36]	Rees G., Kreiman G., & Koch C. (2002). Neural correlates of consciousness in humans. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(4), 261-270. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn783 URL pmid: 11967556
[37]	Reinhart R. M. G., & Woodman G. F. (2014). Causal control of medial-frontal cortex governs electrophysiological and behavioral indices of performance monitoring and learning. The Journal of Neuroscience, 34(12), 4214-4227. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci. 5421-13.2014 doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5421-13.2014 URL
[38]	Sheinberg D. L., & Logothetis N. K. (1997). The role of temporal cortical areas in perceptual organization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94(7), 3408-3413. https://doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.94.7.3408 doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.7.3408 URL
[39]	Shi L., Sun Z., Woodman G. F., Zhang P., & He S. (2019). Lateralized occipitotemporal tDCS modulates dynamics of binocular rivalry between faces and words. Journal of Vision, 19(10), 62b. https://doi.org/10.1167/19.10.62b doi: 10.1167/19.10.62b URL
[40]	Sterzer P., Kleinschmidt A., & Rees G. (2009). The neural bases of multistable perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(7), 310-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.006 doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.006 URL pmid: 19540794
[41]	Tong F., & Engel S. A. (2001). Interocular rivalry revealed in the human cortical blind-spot representation. Nature, 411(6834), 195-199. https://doi.org/10.1038/35075583 doi: 10.1038/35075583 URL
[42]	Tong F., Meng M., & Blake R. (2006). Neural bases of binocular rivalry. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(11), 502-511. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.09.003 URL pmid: 16997612
[43]	Tong F., Nakayama K., Vaughan J. T., & Kanwisher N. (1998). Binocular rivalry and visual awareness in human extrastriate cortex. Neuron, 21(4), 753-759. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(00) 80592-9 URL pmid: 9808462
[44]	Tsuchiya N., Wilke M., Frässle S., & Lamme V. A. (2015). No-report paradigms: extracting the true neural correlates of consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(12), 757-770. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.002 doi: S1364-6613(15)00252-1 URL pmid: 26585549
[45]	van Ee R., van Dam L. C. J., & Brouwer G. J. (2005). Voluntary control and the dynamics of perceptual bi-stability. Vision Research, 45(1), 41-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2004.07.030 URL pmid: 15571737
[46]	Villamar M. F., Volz M. S., Bikson M., Datta A., Dasilva A. F., & Fregni F. (2013). Technique and considerations in the use of 4x1 ring high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS). Journal of Visualized Experiments, (77), e50309. https://doi.org/10.3791/50309
[47]	Wilson H. R. (2003). Computational evidence for a rivalry hierarchy in vision. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(24), 14499-14503. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2333622100 doi: 10.1073/pnas.2333622100 URL
[48]	Wilson H. R., Blake R., & Lee S.-H. (2001). Dynamics of travelling waves in visual perception. Nature, 412(6850), 907-910. https://doi. org/10.1038/35091066 doi: 10.1038/35091066 URL
[49]	Zaretskaya N., Thielscher A., Logothetis N. K., & Bartels A. (2010). Disrupting parietal function prolongs dominance durations in binocular rivalry. Current Biology, 20(23), 2106-2111. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.10.046 doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.10.046 URL pmid: 21093263
[50]	Zhang P., Jamison K., Engel S., He B., & He S. (2011). Binocular rivalry requires visual attention. Neuron, 71(2), 362-369. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.05.035 doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.05.035 URL pmid: 21791293