2005, combined the effectiveness of binocular rivalry and flash suppression to minimise the randomness in rivalry during visual perception and suppression. In a typical CFS trial, the participants are shown two contrasting images, one to each eye and the image of greater signal strength will flash at a constant rate (7-10 Hertz). The target image will be shown to the other eye. Unlike Binocular Switch Suppression (BSS), the target image will remain stationary at the same spot on the screen and will not switch nor flash during the presentation period. To validate and prove BSS effectiveness in rendering usually salient images 'invisible', Arnold et al. (2008) contrasted BSS's performance with CFS', which is regarded as one of the best existing methods in suppressing usually salient images from awareness in the current literature. Results suggest that BSS has the ability to achieve longer duration of suppression and better suppression quality than CFS. In addition, BSS has an optimal rate in suppression of 1 Hertz, while CFS has an optimal rate of 7 Hertz. This difference in optimal frequency in suppressing target images has been suggested to be a resultant of different neural mechanisms behind the suppression effects of these two methods. However, more investigation is required to analyse what these differences are and how these mechanisms differ from one another. Future directions As of now, there has not been any other research that investigate the effectiveness of Binocular Switch Suppression in visual suppression. More rigorous research needs to be done to validate this new way of visual suppression and to supplement this research by Arnold et al. (2008). If this approach is found to be indeed effective and reliable, it could be put into practical use in the research of conscious, subconscious and non-conscious visual processing. See also Binocular rivalry Flash suppression Continuous flash suppression References Binocular rivalry