Early top-down influences on bistable perception revealed by event-related potentials

A longstanding debate exists in the literature concerning bottom-up vs. top-down influences on bistable perception. Recently, a technique has been developed to measure early changes in brain activity (via ERPs) related to perceptual reversals (Kornmeier & Bach, 2004). An ERP component, the reversal negativity (RN) has been identified, and is characterized as an increase in negative potential over the posterior scalp from 150 to 350 ms for perceptual reversals compared to perceptual stability. This finding, although interesting, has not helped resolve issues related to the bottom-up vs. top-down debate because top-down influences have not been directly manipulated. The current study focused on resolving some of these issues by measuring the RN while observers maintained one of three 'intentional approaches', (1) try to reverse perception as often as possible, (2) try to stabilize perception for as long as possible, and (3) maintain a passive approach. Enhancements in RN amplitude were found for the intention-to-reverse condition compared to the passive condition. This finding suggests an early influence (150 ms) of top-down control on perceptual reversals of bistable figures. Results are discussed in terms of competing attention shifting vs. fatigue-based theories of bistable perception.

[1]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Selective attention to the color and direction of moving stimuli: Electrophysiological correlates of hierarchical feature selection , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[3]  David L. Sheinberg,et al.  The role of temporal cortical areas in perceptual organization. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[5]  S. Luck,et al.  Spatio‐temporal dynamics of attention to color: Evidence from human electrophysiology , 1998, Human brain mapping.

[6]  L. Cohen,et al.  Rate of Apparent Change of a Necker Cube as a Function of Prior Stimulation , 1959 .

[7]  Bernice Porjesz,et al.  P300: The Similarities and Differences in the Scalp Distribution of Visual and Auditory Modality , 2004, Brain Topography.

[8]  N. Kawabata.  Attention and Depth Perception , 1986, Perception.

[9]  Thomas F. Nugent,et al.  Dynamic mapping of human cortical development during childhood through early adulthood. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  S. Yantis,et al.  Common neural substrates for the control and effects of visual attention and perceptual bistability. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

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

[12]  Ahmet Ademoglu,et al.  Analysis of the electroencephalographic activity during the Necker cube reversals by means of the wavelet transform , 1998, Biological Cybernetics.

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

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

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

[16]  H. Heinze,et al.  An event-related brain potential study of visual selective attention to conjunctions of color and shape. , 1999, Psychophysiology.

[17]  T W Picton,et al.  The P300 Wave of the Human Event‐Related Potential , 1992, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[18]  Laurie A. Miller,et al.  Perceptual flexibility after frontal or temporal lobectomy , 1994, Neuropsychologia.

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

[20]  A. Wolters,et al.  Dynamics in Psychology , 1943, Nature.

[21]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Event-related brain potentials in the study of visual selective attention. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  M. Valdés-Sosa,et al.  Switching Attention without Shifting the Spotlight: Object-Based Attentional Modulation of Brain Potentials , 1998, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[23]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Spatial Selective Attention Affects Early Extrastriate But Not Striate Components of the Visual Evoked Potential , 1996, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[24]  T. Jernigan,et al.  Maturation of human cerebrum observed in vivo during adolescence. , 1991, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[25]  J. Fuster.  Frontal lobe and cognitive development , 2002, Journal of neurocytology.

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

[27]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[28]  V. Lamme,et al.  The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing , 2000, Trends in Neurosciences.

[29]  Steven A. Hillyard,et al.  Effects of spatial cuing on luminance detectability: Psychophysical and electrophysiological evidence for early selection. , 1994 .

[30]  John Harris,et al.  Biasing Effects in Ambiguous Figures: Removal or Fixation of Critical Features Can Affect Perception , 1997 .

[31]  N. Squires,et al.  Visual evoked potentials to illusory reversals of the necker cube. , 1988, Psychophysiology.

[32]  G. Mangun.  Neural mechanisms of visual selective attention. , 1995, Psychophysiology.

[33]  E. Vogel,et al.  Sensory gain control (amplification) as a mechanism of selective attention: electrophysiological and neuroimaging evidence. , 1998, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[34]  G. Long,et al.  How to Keep a Reversible Figure from Reversing: Teasing Out Top — Down and Bottom — Up Processes , 2007, Perception.

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

[36]  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.

[37]  A. Toga,et al.  In vivo evidence for post-adolescent brain maturation in frontal and striatal regions , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[38]  Krista L. Horlitz,et al.  Satiation or availability? Effects of attention, memory, and imagery on the perception of ambiguous figures , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[39]  A. Toga,et al.  Mapping Continued Brain Growth and Gray Matter Density Reduction in Dorsal Frontal Cortex: Inverse Relationships during Postadolescent Brain Maturation , 2001, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[40]  N. Logothetis,et al.  Neuronal correlates of subjective visual perception. , 1989, Science.

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

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

[43]  G. Shulman.  Attentional effects on Necker cube adaptation , 1993 .

[44]  N. Logothetis,et al.  Activity changes in early visual cortex reflect monkeys' percepts during binocular rivalry , 1996, Nature.

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

[46]  Insights from event-related potentials into the temporal and hierarchical organization of the ventral and dorsal streams of the visual system in selective attention. , 1999, Psychophysiology.

[47]  I Rock,et al.  Why do ambiguous figures reverse? , 1994, Acta psychologica.

[48]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  Brain development during childhood and adolescence: a longitudinal MRI study , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

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

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

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

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

[53]  H G Smid,et al.  The organization of multidimensional selection on the basis of color and shape: An event-related brain potential study , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[55]  Joel L. Davis,et al.  Visual attention and cortical circuits , 2001 .

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

[57]  F. Karayanidis,et al.  An exploration of varieties of visual attention: ERP findings. , 1999, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.