The traditionally held notion that binocular rivalry reflects central selective processes that take effect subsequent to the analysis of both monocular stimuli contrasts with the currently popular view that the suppressed stimulus suffers inhibition, or blocking, at a relatively peripheral level. The available evidence supports the traditional approach. It is argued that although peripheral responses such as changes in pupil diameter or accommodation may be correlated with rivalry suppression, they may not be held responsible for the suppression itself. Similarly, processes of adaptation and contralateral inhibition are unable to explain binocular rivalry. There is evidence, however, that the suppressed stimulus in rivalry is being fully analyzed and evaluated. Perceptual experience is thereby shown to reflect processes over and above the analysis of sensory information, and binocular rivalry suggests itself as a useful context in which to isolate and investigate these processes.