View More View Less
  • 1 Institute of Biology, Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Cognitive Biology Lab Leipziger Str. 44/Haus 91 39120 Magdeburg Germany
Restricted access

Far from being “memoryless”, the phenomenal appearance of an ambiguous display depends in complex ways on the recent history of similar perceptions. Given several possible appearances, the continued dominance of one appearance mitigates against its renewed dominance at a later time. This “negative priming” effect is likely caused by neural adaptation. At the same time, continued dominance of one appearance mitigates in favor of its renewed dominance when stimulation resumes after an interruption. This “positive priming” effect may reflect some kind of neural facilitation. We have used a multi-stable, kinetic depth display to disentangle these positive and negative priming effects. We report that negative priming builds up and decays in seconds, whereas positive priming builds up in seconds and decays in minutes. Moreover, unambiguous displays induce negative, but not positive, priming. This difference, together with their disparate time-courses of recovery, render the two effects cleanly dissociable.

  • Aafjes, M., Hueting, J. E., Visser, P. (1966): Individual and interindividual differences in binocular retinal rivalry in man. Psychophysiology, 3(1), 18–22.

  • Adams, P. A. (1954): The effect of past experience on the perspective reversal of a tridimensional figure. The American journal of psychology, 67(4), 708–10.

  • Alais, D., Cass, J., O’Shea, R. P., Blake, R. (2010): Visual sensitivity underlying changes in visual consciousness. Current biology: CB, 20(15), 1362–7.

  • Blake, R. (1989): A neural theory of binocular rivalry. Psychological review, 96(1), 145–67.

  • Blake, R., Fox, R., McIntyre, C. (1971): Stochastic properties of stabilized-image binocular rivalry alternations. Journal of experimental psychology, 88(3), 327–32.

  • Blake, R. and Logothetis, N. K. (2002): Visual competition. Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 3(1), 13–21.

  • Blake, R., Sobel, K. V, Gilroy, L. A. (2003): Visual motion retards alternations between conflicting perceptual interpretations. Neuron, 39(5), 869–78.

  • Blake, R., Westendorf, D., Fox, R. (1990): Temporal perturbations of binocular rivalry. Perception & psychophysics, 48(6), 593–602.

  • Borsellino, A., De Marco, A., Allazetta, A., Rinesi, S., Bartolini, B. (1972): Reversal time distribution in the perception of visual ambiguous stimuli. Kybernetik, 10(3), 139–144.

  • Brascamp, J. W., Knapen, T. H. J., Kanai, R., Noest, A. J., Van Ee, R., Van den Berg, A. V. (2008): Multi-timescale perceptual history resolves visual ambiguity. PloS one, 3(1), e1497.

  • Brascamp, J. W., Van Ee, R., Noest, A. J., Jacobs, R. H. A. H., Van den Berg, A. V. (2006): The time course of binocular rivalry reveals a fundamental role of noise. Journal of vision, 6(11), 1244–56.

  • Braunstein, M. L., Anderson, G. J., Riefer, D. M. (1982): The use of occlusion to resolve ambiguity in parallel projections. Perception & psychophysics, 31(3), 261–7.

  • Bugelski, B. R., & Alampay, D. A. (1961): The role of frequency in developing perceptual sets. Canadian journal of psychology, 15, 205–11.

  • Chen, X. and He, S. (2004): Local factors determine the stabilization of monocular ambiguous and binocular rivalry stimuli. Current biology : CB, 14(11), 1013–7.

  • Chong, S. C., Tadin, D., Blake, R. (2005): Endogenous attention prolongs dominance durations in binocular rivalry. Journal of vision, 5(11), 1004–12.

  • Fang, F. and He, S. (2004): Stabilized structure from motion without disparity induces disparity adaptation. Current biology : CB, 14(3), 247–51.

  • Fox, R. and Herrmann, J. (1967): Stochastic properties of binocular rivalry alternations. Perception & psychophysics, 2(9), 432–446.

  • Harris, J. P. (1980): How does adaptation to disparity affect the perception of reversible figures? The American journal of psychology, 93(3), 445–57.

  • Hoffmann, M., Dorn, T. J., Bach, M. (1999): Time course of motion adaptation: motion-onset visual evoked potentials and subjective estimates. Vision research, 39(3), 437–44.

  • Kanai, R., Verstraten, F. A. J. (2005): Perceptual manifestations of fast neural plasticity: motion priming, rapid motion aftereffect and perceptual sensitization. Vision research, 45(25-26), 3109–16.

  • Kang, M.-S. and Blake, R. (2010): What causes alternations in dominance during binocular rivalry? Attention, perception & psychophysics, 72(1), 179–86.

  • Kim, Y.-J., Grabowecky, M., Suzuki, S. (2006): Stochastic resonance in binocular rivalry. Vision research, 46(3), 392–406.

  • Knapen, T., Brascamp, J., Adams, W. J., Graf, E. W. (2009): The spatial scale of perceptual memory in ambiguous figure perception. Journal of vision, 9(13), 16.1–12.

  • Kohler, W. and Wallach, H. (1944): Figural After-Effects. An Investigation of Visual Processes. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 88(4), 269–357.

  • Laing, C. R. and Chow, C. C. (2002): A spiking neuron model for binocular rivalry. Journal of computational neuroscience, 12(1), 39–53.

  • Leopold, D. A. and Logothetis, N. K. N. (1999): Multistable phenomena: changing views in perception. Trends in cognitive sciences, 3(7), 254–264.

  • Leopold, D. A., Wilke, M., Maier, A., Logothetis, N. K. (2002): Stable perception of visually ambiguous patterns. Nature neuroscience, 5(6), 605–9.

  • Levelt, W. J. (1965): On binocular rivalry. Soesterberg (The Netherlands): Institute for Perception RVO-TNO.

  • Long, G. M., Toppino, T. C., Mondin, G. W. (1992): Prime time: fatigue and set effects in the perception of reversible figures. Perception & psychophysics, 52(6), 609–16.

  • Maier, A., Wilke, M., Logothetis, N. K., Leopold, D. A. (2003): Perception of temporally interleaved ambiguous patterns. Current biology : CB, 13(13), 1076–85.

  • Medith, G. M. (1967): Some attributive dimensions of reversibility phenomena and their relationship to rigidity and anxiety. Perceptual and motor skills, 24(3), 843–9.

  • Meng, M. and Tong, F. (2004): Can attention selectively bias bistable perception? Differences between binocular rivalry and ambiguous figures. Journal of vision, 4(7), 539–51.

  • Mitchell, J. F., Stoner, G. R., Reynolds, J. H. (2004): Object-based attention determines dominance in binocular rivalry. Nature, 429(6990), 410–3.

  • Moreno-Bote, R., Rinzel, J., Rubin, N. (2007): Noise-induced alternations in an attractor network model of perceptual bistability. Journal of neurophysiology, 98(3), 1125–39.

  • Nawrot, M. and Blake, R. (1989): Neural integration of information specifying structure from stereopsis and motion. Science (New York, N.Y.), 244(4905), 716–8.

  • Necker, L. A. (1832): Observations on some remarkable phenomena seen in Switzerland; and an optical phenomenon which occurs on viewing of a crystal or geometrical solid. Philosophical Magazine, 1, 329–337.

  • Noest, A. J., Van Ee, R., Nijs, M. M., Van Wezel, R. J. A. (2007): Percept-choice sequences driven by interrupted ambiguous stimuli: a low-level neural model. Journal of vision, 7(8), 10.

  • Orbach, J., Ehrlich, D., Heath, H. A. (1963): Reversibility of the Necker cube. I. An examination of the concept of “satiation of orientation”. Perceptual and motor skills, 17, 439–58.

  • Paffen, C. L. E., Alais, D., Verstraten, F. A. J. (2006): Attention speeds binocular rivalry. Psychological science : a journal of the American Psychological Society / APS, 17(9), 752–6.

  • Pastukhov, A. and Braun, J. (2007): Perceptual reversals need no prompting by attention. Journal of vision, 7(10), 5.1–17.

  • Pastukhov, A. and Braun, J. (2008): A short-term memory of multi-stable perception. Journal of vision, 8(13), 7.1–14.

  • Pastukhov, A. and Braun, J. (2011): Cumulative history quantifies the role of neural adaptation in multistable perception. Journal of vision, 11(10), 12.

  • Pearson, J. and Brascamp, J. W. (2008): Sensory memory for ambiguous vision. Trends in cognitive sciences, 12(9), 334–41.

  • Pearson, J. and Clifford, C. G. W. (2004): Determinants of visual awareness following interruptions during rivalry. Journal of vision, 4(3), 196–202.

  • Petersik, T. J. (2002): Buildup and decay of a three-dimensional rotational aftereffect obtained with a three-dimensional figure. Perception, 31(7), 825–36.

  • Ramachandran, V. S. and Anstis, S. M. (1983): Perceptual organization in moving patterns. Nature, 304(5926), 529–31.

  • Reisberg, D. and O’Shaughnessy, M. (1984): Diverting subjects’ concentration slows figural reversals. Perception, 13(4), 461–8.

  • Ross, J. and Ma-Wyatt, A. (2004): Saccades actively maintain perceptual continuity. Nature neuroscience, 7(1), 65–9.

  • Sanchez-Vives, M. V, Nowak, L. G., McCormick, D. A. (2000): Cellular mechanisms of long-lasting adaptation in visual cortical neurons in vitro. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 20(11), 4286–99.

  • Sheppard, B. M. and Pettigrew, J. D. (2006): Plaid motion rivalry: correlates with binocular rivalry and positive mood state. Perception, 35(2), 157–69.

  • Shpiro, A., Curtu, R., Rinzel, J., Rubin, N. (2007): Dynamical characteristics common to neuronal competition models. Journal of neurophysiology, 97(1), 462–73.

  • Sterzer, P. and Rees, G. (2008): A neural basis for percept stabilization in binocular rivalry. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 20(3), 389–99.

  • Suzuki, S. and Grabowecky, M. (2007): Long-term speeding in perceptual switches mediated by attention-dependent plasticity in cortical visual processing. Neuron, 56(4), 741–53.

  • Tong, F., Meng, M., Blake, R. (2006): Neural bases of binocular rivalry. Trends in cognitive sciences, 10(11), 502–11.

  • Tong, F., Nakayama, K., Vaughan, J. T., Kanwisher, N. (1998): Binocular rivalry and visual awareness in human extrastriate cortex. Neuron, 21(4), 753–9.

  • Toppino, T. C. (2003): Reversible-figure perception: mechanisms of intentional control. Perception & psychophysics, 65(8), 1285–95.

  • Van Ee, R. (2005): Dynamics of perceptual bi-stability for stereoscopic slant rivalry and a comparison with grating, house-face, and Necker cube rivalry. Vision research, 45(1), 29–40.

  • Van Ee, R. (2009): Stochastic variations in sensory awareness are driven by noisy neuronal adaptation: evidence from serial correlations in perceptual bistability. Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision, 26(12), 2612–22.

  • Von Helmholtz, H. (1866): Treatise on Physiological Optics: Vol. 3. (James P.C. Southhall, Ed.) (3rd ed., Vol. 3): Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Publishing Company.

  • Walker, P. (1975): Stochastic properties of binocular-rivalry alternations. Perception & psychophysics, 18(6), 467–473.

  • Wallach, H. and O’Connell, D. N. (1953): The kinetic depth effect. Journal of experimental psychology, 45(4), 205–17.

  • Wheatstone, C. (1838): Contributions to the physiology of vision–part the first. on some remarkable, and hitherto unobserved, phenomena of binocular vision. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 128, 371–394.

  • Wilson, H. R. (2003): Computational evidence for a rivalry hierarchy in vision. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(24), 14499–503.

  • Wolfe, J. M. (1984): Reversing ocular dominance and suppression in a single flash. Vision research, 24(5), 471–8.

Learning & Perception
Language English
Year of
per Year
per Year
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 1789-3186 (Print)
ISSN 2060-9175 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Jun 2021 4 0 0
Jul 2021 7 0 0
Aug 2021 6 0 0
Sep 2021 2 0 0
Oct 2021 4 0 0
Nov 2021 2 0 0
Dec 2021 0 0 0