Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Pedestrian Collision Detection and Avoidance in Cerebral Visual Impairment During Unrestricted Walking in an Immersive Virtual Reality Environment.

Research square·2026
Same author

Applied Anatomical and Morphological Characterization of the Ocular Surface of the African Spiny Mice: Acomys cahirinus.

Investigative ophthalmology & visual science·2026
Same author

Repeatability of a novel chromatic perimeter in a cohort of people with and without glucose dysfunction.

Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry·2025
Same author

Attention in redundancy masking.

Attention, perception & psychophysics·2024
Same author

Alterations to foveal crowding with microsaccade preparation.

Vision research·2023
Same author

Impact of monocular vs. binocular contrast and blur on the range of functional stereopsis.

Vision research·2023

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Nov 7, 2025

How to Create and Use Binocular Rivalry
14:34

How to Create and Use Binocular Rivalry

Published on: November 10, 2010

76.0K

Stimulus dependence of interocular suppression.

Wei Hau Lew1, Scott B Stevenson2, Daniel R Coates2

  • 1University of Houston College of Optometry, 4901 Calhoun Rd, Houston, TX, 77004, USA. wlew@central.uh.edu.

Scientific Reports
|April 30, 2021
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Stimulus characteristics significantly impact interocular suppression zones. Lower contrast and higher spatial frequency reduce suppression, revealing key insights into visual processing.

More Related Videos

The Measurement and Treatment of Suppression in Amblyopia
08:34

The Measurement and Treatment of Suppression in Amblyopia

Published on: December 14, 2012

50.3K
Monocular Visual Deprivation and Ocular Dominance Plasticity Measurement in the Mouse Primary Visual Cortex
08:42

Monocular Visual Deprivation and Ocular Dominance Plasticity Measurement in the Mouse Primary Visual Cortex

Published on: February 8, 2020

10.6K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Nov 7, 2025

How to Create and Use Binocular Rivalry
14:34

How to Create and Use Binocular Rivalry

Published on: November 10, 2010

76.0K
The Measurement and Treatment of Suppression in Amblyopia
08:34

The Measurement and Treatment of Suppression in Amblyopia

Published on: December 14, 2012

50.3K
Monocular Visual Deprivation and Ocular Dominance Plasticity Measurement in the Mouse Primary Visual Cortex
08:42

Monocular Visual Deprivation and Ocular Dominance Plasticity Measurement in the Mouse Primary Visual Cortex

Published on: February 8, 2020

10.6K

Area of Science:

  • Neuroscience
  • Ophthalmology
  • Visual Perception

Background:

  • Interocular suppression occurs when dissimilar images in each eye lead to inhibition of one eye's signal.
  • Existing methods for assessing suppression vary in stimulus parameters, hindering outcome comparison.
  • Understanding stimulus influence is crucial for standardizing suppression measurements.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate how stimulus characteristics affect the spatial extent of the suppression zone.
  • To evaluate the role of spatial frequency, contrast, and polarity in interocular suppression.
  • To model the observed suppression zone dynamics.

Main Methods:

  • A binocular rivalry paradigm was used with normally-sighted observers.
  • A transient suppression zone was induced by presenting vertical suppressors to one eye.
  • Stimulus parameters like spatial frequency, contrast, and polarity were systematically varied.
  • Participants adjusted suppressor width to quantify the suppression zone size.

Main Results:

  • Suppression zone size decreased significantly with increasing spatial frequency and decreasing contrast.
  • The suppression zone was larger in width than height (1.4:1 ratio).
  • Negative contrast polarity resulted in smaller zones compared to positive polarity; eye dominance and luminance had no effect.

Conclusions:

  • Stimulus characteristics, particularly spatial frequency and contrast, play a critical role in determining the extent of interocular suppression.
  • A model accounting for both stimulus-dependent and fixed components explains the observed suppression zone.
  • Findings highlight the need to consider stimulus parameters for accurate and comparable suppression measurements.