ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2026
Neither the number of feature dimensions nor their task relevance necessarily affect interocular grouping in binocular rivalry.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When one eye views half of stimulus A and half of stimulus B, and the other eye views the respective other halves, perception fluctuates. Among percepts reflecting monocular inputs (indicating typical binocular rivalry), percepts of undivided stimuli A and B occur. They indicate the grouping of parts of inputs from both eyes together, a process called "interocular grouping". Our study investigated if, similar to binocular rivalry, this process is affected by attentional modulation stemming from manipulating the task relevance of the stimulus features driving it. We used stimuli in which form (object identity), motion (motion direction), or both could drive interocular grouping. Contrary to our hypothesis, the grouping was not affected by designating either of these dimensions as task relevant. Moreover, unlike in previous studies, we did not observe stronger grouping when two features, instead of one, drove it. However, we found that our manipulation of task relevance influenced observers' eye movements, which, in turn, was related to the number of perceptual changes the observers reported. We interpret this pattern of results as suggesting that the dynamics of perceptual fluctuations differed depending on the task. Overall, we show that the factors influencing interocular grouping strength are more complex than previously thought and not necessarily aligned with the factors influencing binocular rivalry. The data from this study can be accessed via the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18924437 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.