Predictive Context Influences Perceptual Selection during Binocular Rivalry

Prediction may be a fundamental principle of sensory processing: it has been proposed that the brain continuously generates predictions about forthcoming sensory information. However, little is known about how prediction contributes to the selection of a conscious percept from among competing alternatives. Here, we used binocular rivalry to investigate the effects of prediction on perceptual selection. In binocular rivalry, incompatible images presented to the two eyes result in a perceptual alternation between the images, even though the visual stimuli remain constant. If predictive signals influence the competition between neural representations of rivalrous images, this influence should generate a bias in perceptual selection that depends on predictive context. To manipulate predictive context, we developed a novel binocular rivalry paradigm in which rivalrous test images were immediately preceded by a sequence of context images presented identically to the two eyes. One of the test images was consistent with the preceding image sequence (it was the expected next image in the series), and the other was inconsistent (non-predicted). We found that human observers were more likely to perceive the consistent image at the onset of rivalry, suggesting that predictive context biased selection in favor of the predicted percept. This prediction effect was distinct from the effects of adaptation to stimuli presented before the binocular rivalry test. In addition, perceptual reports were speeded for predicted percepts relative to non-predicted percepts. These results suggest that predictive signals related to visual stimulus history exist at neural sites that can bias conscious perception during binocular rivalry. Our paradigm provides a new way to study how prior information and incoming sensory information combine to generate visual percepts.

[1]  D. Knill,et al.  Bayesian sampling in visual perception , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  M. Carrasco Visual attention: The past 25 years , 2011, Vision Research.

[3]  Neil W. Roach,et al.  Visual Motion Induces a Forward Prediction of Spatial Pattern , 2011, Current Biology.

[4]  M. Shimono,et al.  Neural processes for intentional control of perceptual switching: A magnetoencephalography study , 2011, Human Brain Mapping.

[5]  Caspar M. Schwiedrzik,et al.  Expectations Change the Signatures and Timing of Electrophysiological Correlates of Perceptual Awareness , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[6]  Michael Esterman,et al.  Perceptual expectation evokes category-selective cortical activity. , 2010, Cerebral cortex.

[7]  Michael W. Spratling Predictive Coding as a Model of Response Properties in Cortical Area V1 , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[8]  Zhe Qu,et al.  Specificity of face processing without awareness , 2010, Consciousness and Cognition.

[9]  Caspar M. Schwiedrzik,et al.  Stimulus Predictability Reduces Responses in Primary Visual Cortex , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[10]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Perceptual Multistability as Markov Chain Monte Carlo Inference , 2009, NIPS.

[11]  C. Summerfield,et al.  Expectation (and attention) in visual cognition , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[12]  Kerem Ozkan,et al.  Predominance of ground over ceiling surfaces in binocular rivalry , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[13]  D. Leopold,et al.  Neural activity in the visual thalamus reflects perceptual suppression , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Predictive coding under the free-energy principle , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[15]  Erich W Graf,et al.  Natural images dominate in binocular rivalry , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  The mismatch negativity: A review of underlying mechanisms , 2009, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[17]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Predictive coding explains binocular rivalry: An epistemological review , 2008, Cognition.

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

[19]  P. Petrovic,et al.  Believing is seeing: expectations alter visual awareness , 2008, Current Biology.

[20]  C. Summerfield,et al.  A Neural Representation of Prior Information during Perceptual Inference , 2008, Neuron.

[21]  Frank Tong,et al.  The Functional Impact of Mental Imagery on Conscious Perception , 2008, Current Biology.

[22]  N. Logothetis What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI , 2008, Nature.

[23]  Michael W. Spratling Predictive coding as a model of biased competition in visual attention , 2008, Vision Research.

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

[25]  M. Bar,et al.  Top-down predictions in the cognitive brain , 2007, Brain and Cognition.

[26]  A. V. van den Berg,et al.  Flash suppression and flash facilitation in binocular rivalry. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[27]  R N Henson,et al.  Mechanisms of top-down facilitation in perception of visual objects studied by FMRI. , 2007, Cerebral cortex.

[28]  Timothy J Andrews,et al.  The Role of Voluntary and Involuntary Attention in Selecting Perceptual Dominance during Binocular Rivalry , 2007, Perception.

[29]  Paul R. Schrater,et al.  Theory and Dynamics of Perceptual Bistability , 2006, NIPS.

[30]  N. Logothetis,et al.  Local field potential reflects perceptual suppression in monkey visual cortex , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[31]  R. Blake,et al.  Neural bases of binocular rivalry , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[33]  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.

[34]  Sabine Kastner,et al.  Neural correlates of binocular rivalry in the human lateral geniculate nucleus , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[35]  R. Deichmann,et al.  Eye-specific effects of binocular rivalry in the human lateral geniculate nucleus , 2005, Nature.

[36]  T. Hubbard Representational momentum and related displacements in spatial memory: A review of the findings , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[37]  Anna C. Nobre,et al.  Synergistic Effect of Combined Temporal and Spatial Expectations on Visual Attention , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[38]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  A theory of cortical responses , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[39]  Cynthia S. Sahm,et al.  Past trials influence perception of ambiguous motion quartets through pattern completion. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[40]  D. Knill,et al.  The Bayesian brain: the role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation , 2004, Trends in Neurosciences.

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

[42]  Jude F. Mitchell,et al.  Object-based attention determines dominance in binocular rivalry , 2004, Nature.

[43]  A. Yuille,et al.  Object perception as Bayesian inference. , 2004, Annual review of psychology.

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

[45]  R. Blake,et al.  V1 activity is reduced during binocular rivalry. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[46]  Paul Schrater,et al.  Shape perception reduces activity in human primary visual cortex , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[47]  Edward H. Adelson,et al.  Motion illusions as optimal percepts , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

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

[49]  N. Logothetis,et al.  Neurophysiological investigation of the basis of the fMRI signal , 2001, Nature.

[50]  Stephen A. Engel,et al.  Interocular rivalry revealed in the human cortical blind-spot representation , 2001, Nature.

[51]  D. Heeger,et al.  Neuronal activity in human primary visual cortex correlates with perception during binocular rivalry , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[52]  Ravi S. Menon,et al.  The effects of visual object priming on brain activation before and after recognition , 2000, Current Biology.

[53]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Binocular Rivalry and Visual Awareness: The Role of Attention , 1999, Perception.

[54]  R. Blake,et al.  Rival ideas about binocular rivalry , 1999, Vision Research.

[55]  Peter Dayan,et al.  A Hierarchical Model of Binocular Rivalry , 1998, Neural Computation.

[56]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  How the brain learns to see objects and faces in an impoverished context , 1997, Nature.

[57]  R. Gregory,et al.  Knowledge in perception and illusion. , 1997, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[58]  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.

[59]  John H. R. Maunsell,et al.  No binocular rivalry in the LGN of alert macaque monkeys , 1996, Vision Research.

[60]  David A. Leopold,et al.  What is rivalling during binocular rivalry? , 1996, Nature.

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

[62]  Scott N. J. Watamaniuk,et al.  Seeing motion behind occluders , 1995, Nature.

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

[64]  J. Freyd,et al.  Probing the time course of representational momentum. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[65]  M. Peterson Illusory concomitant motion in ambiguous stereograms: evidence for nonstimulus contributions to perceptual organization. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[66]  James E. Goehring,et al.  THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION , 1986 .

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

[68]  R Blake,et al.  The Site of Binocular Rivalry Suppression , 1979, Perception.

[69]  R Sekuler,et al.  Mental set alters visibility of moving targets , 1977, Science.

[70]  C. Blakemore,et al.  The orientation specificity of two visual after‐effects , 1971, The Journal of physiology.

[71]  Hermann von Helmholtz,et al.  Treatise on Physiological Optics , 1962 .

[72]  E. Engel,et al.  The rôle content in binocular resolution. , 1956, The American journal of psychology.

[73]  D. Perrett,et al.  EPS Mid-Career Award 2008 Seeing the future: Natural image sequences produce "anticipatory" neuronal activity and bias perceptual report , 2009 .

[74]  D. Mumford On the computational architecture of the neocortex , 2004, Biological Cybernetics.

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

[76]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  Predictive coding in the visual cortex: a functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. , 1999 .

[77]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[78]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[79]  Arnold Trehub The cognitive brain , 1991 .

[80]  R A Finke,et al.  Facilitation of length discrimination using real and imaged context frames. , 1984, The American journal of psychology.

[81]  Jennifer A. Mangels,et al.  References and Notes Supporting Online Material Predictive Codes for Forthcoming Perception in the Frontal Cortex , 2022 .

[82]  P. Carmeliet,et al.  Object-based attention determines dominance in binocular rivalry , 2022 .