Common contextual influences in ambiguous and rivalrous figures

Images that resist binocular fusion undergo alternating periods of dominance and suppression, similarly to ambiguous figures whose percepts alternate between two interpretations. It has been well documented that the perceptual interpretations of both rivalrous and ambiguous figures are influenced by their spatio-temporal context. Here we consider whether an identical spatial context similarly influences the interpretation of a similar rivalrous and ambiguous figure. We developed a binocularly rivalrous stimulus whose perceptual experience mirrors that of a Necker cube. We employed a paradigm similar to that of Ouhnana and Kingdom (2016) to correlate the magnitude of influence of context between the rivalrous and ambiguous target. Our results showed that the magnitude of contextual influence is significantly correlated within observers between both binocularly rivalrous and ambiguous target figures. This points to a similar contextual-influence mechanism operating on a common mechanism underlying the perceptual instability in both ambiguous and rivalrous figures.

[1]  Thomas C. Toppino,et al.  Prime time: Fatigue and set effects in the perception of reversible figures , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[2]  D. Alais Binocular rivalry: competition and inhibition in visual perception. , 2012, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[3]  Randolph Blake,et al.  How Context Influences Predominance during Binocular Rivalry , 2002, Perception.

[4]  W. Levelt,et al.  The ‘laws’ of binocular rivalry: 50 years of Levelt’s propositions , 2015, Vision Research.

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

[6]  Hiroshi Uozato,et al.  Effects of Dominant and Nondominant Eyes in Binocular Rivalry , 2004, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[7]  M. Wertheimer Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. II , 1923 .

[8]  Tomas Knapen,et al.  Removal of monocular interactions equates rivalry behavior for monocular, binocular, and stimulus rivalries. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[9]  R. van Ee,et al.  United we sense, divided we fail: context-driven perception of ambiguous visual stimuli , 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[10]  R. Lipman,et al.  Some Factors Affecting Necker Cube Reversal Rate , 1962, Perceptual and motor skills.

[11]  P. Romano Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology. , 2000, Binocular vision & strabismus quarterly.

[12]  Max Wertheimer,et al.  Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt , .

[13]  Allan C. Dobbins,et al.  Asymmetries in Perception of 3D Orientation , 2010, PloS one.

[14]  R. van Ee,et al.  Visible and invisible stimulus parts integrate into global object representations as revealed by combining monocular and binocular rivalry. , 2016, Journal of vision.

[15]  R. Sundareswara,et al.  Perceptual multistability predicted by search model for Bayesian decisions. , 2008, Journal of vision.

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

[17]  N. Logothetis,et al.  Visual competition , 2002, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

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

[19]  J. Saunders,et al.  Demonstration of cue recruitment: change in visual appearance by means of Pavlovian conditioning. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  I. Kovács,et al.  When the brain changes its mind: interocular grouping during binocular rivalry. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  W. Miles Ocular dominance in human adults. , 1930 .

[22]  F. Kingdom,et al.  Perceptual-binding in a rotating Necker cube: The effect of context motion and position , 2016, Vision Research.

[23]  R. Blake,et al.  What is Suppressed during Binocular Rivalry? , 1980, Perception.