Event-related potential responses to perceptual reversals are modulated by working memory load

While viewing ambiguous figures, such as the Necker cube, the available perceptual interpretations alternate with one another. The role of higher level mechanisms in such reversals remains unclear. We tested whether perceptual reversals of discontinuously presented Necker cube pairs depend on working memory resources by manipulating cognitive load while recording event-related potentials (ERPs). The ERPs showed early enhancements of negativity, which were obtained in response to the first cube approximately 500 ms before perceived reversals. We found that working memory load influenced reversal-related brain responses in response to the second cube over occipital areas at the 150-300 ms post-stimulus and over central areas at P3 time window (300-500 ms), suggesting that it modulates intermediate visual processes. Interestingly, reversal rates remained unchanged by the working memory load. We propose that perceptual reversals in discontinuous presentation of ambiguous stimuli are governed by an early (well preceding pending reversals) mechanism, while the effects of load on the reversal related ERPs may reflect general top-down influences on visual processing, possibly mediated by the prefrontal cortex.

[1]  Michael Bach,et al.  Necker cube: stimulus-related (low-level) and percept-related (high-level) EEG signatures early in occipital cortex. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[2]  J. Qiu,et al.  The vase-face illusion seen by the brain: an event-related brain potentials study. , 2009, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[3]  Peter König,et al.  Influence of disparity on fixation and saccades in free viewing of natural scenes. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[4]  G. J. Brouwer,et al.  Voluntary control and the dynamics of perceptual bi-stability , 2005, Vision Research.

[5]  J. Braun,et al.  Structure-from-motion: dissociating perception, neural persistence, and sensory memory of illusory depth and illusory rotation , 2012, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[6]  Mary A. Peterson,et al.  Opposed-set measurement procedure: A quantitative analysis of the role of local cues and intention in form perception. , 1983 .

[7]  J. Hochberg,et al.  Piecemeal organization and cognitive components in object perception: perceptually coupled responses to moving objects. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[8]  A. Kok.  On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. , 2001, Psychophysiology.

[9]  R. Liebert,et al.  Voluntary Control of Reversible Figures , 1985, Perceptual and motor skills.

[10]  Edward K. Vogel,et al.  The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions , 1997, Nature.

[11]  L. Jonkman,et al.  Effects of concurrent working memory load on distractor and conflict processing in a name-face Stroop task. , 2011, Psychophysiology.

[12]  Osvaldas Rukšėnas,et al.  Reversal negativity and bistable stimuli: Attention, awareness, or something else? , 2010, Brain and Cognition.

[13]  Miguel Castelo-Branco,et al.  The linear impact of concurrent working memory load on dynamics of Necker cube perceptual reversals. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[14]  R. van Ee,et al.  Percept-choice sequences driven by interrupted ambiguous stimuli: a low-level neural model. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[15]  Georgios A. Keliris,et al.  Introduction to Research Topic – Binocular Rivalry: A Gateway to Studying Consciousness , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[16]  Michael Bach,et al.  Discontinuous presentation of ambiguous figures: how interstimulus-interval durations affect reversal dynamics and ERPs. , 2007, Psychophysiology.

[17]  G. E. Smith.  The Human Brain , 1924, Nature.

[18]  J. Jonides,et al.  Rehearsal in spatial working memory. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  M. Ernst.  Learning to integrate arbitrary signals from vision and touch. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[20]  E. Donchin,et al.  Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? , 1988, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[21]  Maro G. Machizawa,et al.  Neural activity predicts individual differences in visual working memory capacity , 2004, Nature.

[22]  Geraint Rees,et al.  A Neural Basis for Percept Stabilization in Binocular Rivalry , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[23]  E. Vogel,et al.  CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE How to Exploit Diversity for Scientific Gain Using Individual Differences to Constrain Cognitive Theory , 2022 .

[24]  Joel Pearson,et al.  Sensory memory for ambiguous vision , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[25]  Sabine Windmann,et al.  Role of the Prefrontal Cortex in Attentional Control over Bistable Vision , 2006 .

[26]  Michael Bach,et al.  Multistable perception: When bottom-up and top-down coincide , 2009, Brain and Cognition.

[27]  V. Noreika,et al.  Interaction of bottom-up and top-down processes in the perception of ambiguous figures , 2013, Vision Research.

[28]  T. Knapen,et al.  The spatial scale of perceptual memory in ambiguous figure perception. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[29]  M M Smyth,et al.  Interference in immediate spatial memory , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[30]  David Soto,et al.  Electrophysiological evidence for attentional guidance by the contents of working memory , 2009, The European journal of neuroscience.

[31]  Maro G. Machizawa,et al.  Neural measures reveal individual differences in controlling access to working memory , 2005, Nature.

[32]  Barry Fowler,et al.  The differential effects of Sternberg short- and long-term memory scanning on the late Nd and P300 in a dual-task paradigm. , 2004, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[33]  N. Logothetis,et al.  Multistable phenomena: changing views in perception , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[34]  R. S. J. Frackowiak,et al.  Human brain activity during spontaneously reversing perception of ambiguous figures , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[35]  D. Strüber,et al.  Differences in Top—Down Influences on the Reversal Rate of Different Categories of Reversible Figures , 1999, Perception.

[36]  N. Cowan.  The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[37]  E Başar,et al.  Multistable visual perception induces a slow positive EEG wave. , 1993, The International journal of neuroscience.

[38]  M. Koivisto,et al.  Perceptual reversals of Necker stimuli during intermittent presentation with limited attentional resources. , 2013, Psychophysiology.

[39]  Theodor Landis,et al.  Right parietal brain activity precedes perceptual alternation of bistable stimuli. , 2009, Cerebral cortex.

[40]  J. Jonides,et al.  Overlapping mechanisms of attention and spatial working memory , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[41]  A. V. van den Berg,et al.  Multi-Timescale Perceptual History Resolves Visual Ambiguity , 2008, PloS one.

[42]  Michael A. Pitts,et al.  Early top-down influences on bistable perception revealed by event-related potentials , 2008, Brain and Cognition.

[43]  C. Koch,et al.  Inferring the direction of implied motion depends on visual awareness. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[44]  G. Rees,et al.  Covariation of activity in visual and prefrontal cortex associated with subjective visual perception. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[45]  E Donchin,et al.  Resource reciprocity: an event-related brain potentials analysis. , 1989, Acta psychologica.

[46]  David A. Leopold,et al.  Stable perception of visually ambiguous patterns , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[47]  Thomas C. Toppino,et al.  As the cube turns: Evidence for two processes in the perception of a dynamic reversible figure , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[48]  R. C. Oldfield.  The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[49]  J. Orbach,et al.  Reversibility of the Necker Cube: III. Effects of Interpolation on Reversal Rate of the Cube Presented Repetitively , 1963, Perceptual and motor skills.

[50]  Philip Meier,et al.  Rat performance on visual detection task modeled with divisive normalization and adaptive decision thresholds. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[51]  Michael Bach,et al.  Early neural activity in Necker-cube reversal: evidence for low-level processing of a gestalt phenomenon. , 2004, Psychophysiology.

[52]  Michael Bach,et al.  The Necker cube—an ambiguous figure disambiguated in early visual processing , 2005, Vision Research.

[53]  G. Rees,et al.  The Neural Bases of Multistable Perception , 2022 .

[54]  Ronald Olson,et al.  Reversibility of the Necker Cube: VII. Reversal Rate as a Function of Figure-on and Figure-off Durations , 1966 .

[55]  J. Orbach,et al.  Reversibility of the Necker Cube: I. An Examination of the Concept of “Satiation of Orientation” , 1963, Perceptual and motor skills.

[56]  Thomas C. Toppino,et al.  Selective adaptation with reversible figures: Don’t change that channel , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

[57]  J. Buitelaar,et al.  Attentional capacity, a probe ERP study: differences between children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and normal control children and effects of methylphenidate. , 2000, Psychophysiology.

[58]  Michael A. Pitts,et al.  Electrophysiological correlates of perceptual reversals for three different types of multistable images. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[59]  Alexander Maier,et al.  Perception of Temporally Interleaved Ambiguous Patterns , 2003, Current Biology.

[60]  Michael Bach,et al.  Ambiguous Figures – What Happens in the Brain When Perception Changes But Not the Stimulus , 2011, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[61]  L. H. Pelton,et al.  Acceleration of reversals of a Necker cube. , 1968, The American journal of psychology.

[62]  Michael A. Pitts,et al.  Early Stages of Figure–Ground Segregation during Perception of the Face–Vase , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[63]  Thomas C. Toppino,et al.  Enduring interest in perceptual ambiguity: alternating views of reversible figures. , 2004, Psychological bulletin.

[64]  C. Blundo,et al.  Perception of ambiguous figures after focal brain lesions , 1990, Neuropsychologia.

[65]  Michael A. Pitts,et al.  Right parietal brain activity precedes perceptual alternation during binocular rivalry , 2011, Human brain mapping.

[66]  Thomas C. Toppino,et al.  Reversible-figure perception: Mechanisms of intentional control , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.

[67]  Michael A. Pitts,et al.  Neural generators of ERPs linked with Necker cube reversals. , 2009, Psychophysiology.