Attentional control over either of the two competing percepts of ambiguous stimuli revealed by a two-parameter analysis: Means do not make the difference

We studied distributions of perceptual rivalry reversals, as defined by the two fitted parameters of the Gamma distribution. We did so for a variety of bi-stable stimuli and voluntary control exertion tasks. Subjects' distributions differed from one another for a particular stimulus and control task in a systematic way that reflects a constraint on the describing parameters. We found a variety of two-parameter effects, the most important one being that distributions of subjects differ from one another in the same systematic way across different stimuli and control tasks (i.e., a fast switcher remains fast across all conditions in a parameter-specified way). The cardinal component of subject-dependent variation was not the conventionally used mean reversal rate, but a component that was oriented-for all stimuli and tasks-roughly perpendicular to the mean rate. For the Necker cube, we performed additional experiments employing specific variations in control exertion, suggesting that subjects have to a considerable extent independent control over the reversal rate of either of the two competing percepts.

[1]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Exogenous attention and endogenous attention influence initial dominance in binocular rivalry , 2006, Vision Research.

[2]  Robert P O'Shea,et al.  Selective attention and the control of binocular rivalry” by L. C. Lack. The Hague: Mouton, 1978 , 1981 .

[3]  G. Meredith,et al.  Effect of Instructional Conditions on Rate of Binocular Rivalry , 1962, Perceptual and motor skills.

[4]  R. Blake.  Dichoptic reading: The role of meaning in binocular rivalry , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[5]  D. Purves,et al.  Similarities in normal and binocularly rivalrous viewing. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  R. Wilfred George,et al.  The Significance of the Fluctuations Experienced in Observing Ambiguous Figures and in Binocular Rivalry , 1936 .

[7]  W. B. Pillsbury.  The Physiological Factors of the Attention Process. , 1905 .

[8]  P. Walker.  Binocular rivalry : Central or peripheral selective processes? , 1978 .

[9]  A. Borsellino,et al.  Reversal time distribution in the perception of visual ambiguous stimuli , 1972, Kybernetik.

[10]  M. Peterson,et al.  Multiplicative Effects of Intention on the Perception of Bistable Apparent Motion , 2000, Psychological science.

[11]  Raymond van Ee,et al.  The role of saccades in exerting voluntary control in perceptual and binocular rivalry , 2006, Vision Research.

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

[13]  L. Lack.  Selective attention and the control of binocular rivalry , 1978 .

[14]  W. Mcdougall,et al.  III.—THE PHYSIOLOGICAL FACTORS OF THE ATTENTION-PROCESS (III.) , 1903 .

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

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

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

[18]  W. B. Pillsbury.  Physiological Factors of the Attention Process. , 1903 .

[19]  F. Tong,et al.  Can attention selectively bias bistable perception? Differences between binocular rivalry and ambiguous figures. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[20]  M. Washburn,et al.  Motor Factors in Voluntary Control of Cube Perspective Fluctuations and Retinal Rivalry Fluctuations , 1933 .

[21]  W J Levelt,et al.  Note on the distribution of dominance times in binocular rivalry. , 1967, British journal of psychology.

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

[23]  N. Logothetis,et al.  What is rivalling during binocular rivalry , 1996 .

[24]  Raymond van Ee,et al.  The role of (micro)saccades and blinks in perceptual bi-stability from slant rivalry , 2005, Vision Research.

[25]  Raymond van Ee,et al.  Distributions of alternation rates in various forms of bistable perception. , 2005, Journal of vision.

[26]  Vision Research , 1961, Nature.

[27]  P. Cz..  Handbuch der physiologischen Optik , 1896 .

[28]  R. Blake,et al.  Endogenous attention prolongs dominance durations in binocular rivalry. , 2005, Journal of vision.

[29]  R. van Ee,et al.  Attention-biased multi-stable surface perception in three-dimensional structure-from-motion. , 2003, Journal of Vision.

[30]  Massimo Riani,et al.  Effects of Visual Angle on Perspective Reversal for Ambiguous Patterns , 1982, Perception.

[31]  G. Brouwer,et al.  Endogenous influences on perceptual bistability depend on exogenous stimulus characteristics , 2006, Vision Research.

[32]  Pascal Mamassian,et al.  Temporal dynamics in bistable perception. , 2005, Journal of vision.

[33]  A. V. van den Berg,et al.  An invariant for timing of saccades during visual search , 2005, Vision Research.

[34]  Raymond van Ee,et al.  Dynamics of perceptual bi-stability for stereoscopic slant rivalry and a comparison with grating, house-face, and Necker cube rivalry , 2005, Vision Research.

[35]  J. Pettigrew,et al.  A Common Oscillator for Perceptual Rivalries? , 2003, Perception.

[36]  Marcia Grabowecky,et al.  Evidence for Perceptual “Trapping” and Adaptation in Multistable Binocular Rivalry , 2002, Neuron.