When conflicting contours are projected to corresponding areas of the retinae through a stereoscopic device, S reports viewing not a stable figure but an irregular alternation that cannot be given a unitary interpretation. For example, if the conflicting contours are a vertical bar projected to the left eye and a horizontal bar projected to the right, rhen the phenomenal outcome is the periodic establishment of one bar as dominant and the total or partial suppression of the other. The experienced alternation in contour domrnance defines the phenomenon of bitaoczdm (retinal) rivaky, and the total number of reversals or alternations per unit of time has been taken as an operational measure of the rate of binocz~lar rivahy. Historically, the phenomenon of binocular was linked with sensory threshold and figure reversal and was accounted for merely as fluctuations in the (Helmholtz, 1925). However, Guilford ( 1927) demonstrated thac these three phenomena had nothing to do with attention but were a physiological function occurring only with liminal stimuli; a number of physiological conditions, both peripheral and central, were involved, among which were local adaptation, eye movements, and local-central fatigue and inhibition. McDougall ( 1903) held thac the latter, local-central fatigue and inhibition, accounted for the phenomenon of rivalry; but that the phenomenon is affected by so many other than physiological factors that no purely physiological explanation could be satisfactory. Recently, Linksz ( 1952, p. 549) has deplored the usage of the term retinal rivalry for the phenomenon and instead employs the term of processes. The of the contours, he argues, is the phenomenal counterpart of opposing neurological gradients which cannot occupy the same cortical (or retinal) locus. Because of the limited neurological and physiological data in this area, the present writers have employed the more neutral and less objectional term, binocular rivalry, to describe the phenomenon. Although a number of studies have been conducted to determine rhe effects of rnv~ronmental variables, such as illumination level, figure-ground relationships, sc~mulus content, etc., on the rate of binocular rivalry, relatively few have been concerned with the inscri~ctions. Specifically, what is the effect of insuucrions on the reversal process? In his early work, Helmholtz (1925, p. 541) observed that he could voluntarily control the persistence of one visual field over the other, but he dismissed this ubiquitous finding as simply a phenomenon of