Electrophysiological correlates of perceptual reversals for three different types of multistable images.

Electrophysiological recordings were made in 21 observers to investigate whether differences in signature components (P1, N1, selection negativity [SN]) would be revealed during perceptual reversals of three different multistable figures. Using a lattice of Necker cubes as a stimulus, J. Kornmeier and M. Bach (2004, 2005) reported differences in P1 amplitudes as well a broad reversal-related negativity occurring 200-400 ms poststimulus. The current study investigated whether these event-related potentials of Necker cube reversals represent general "perceptual switching" mechanisms and would, therefore, be common to other types of multistable figures. Three different types of multistable stimuli were utilized: a modified Rubin's face/vase, a modified Schröder's staircase, and a novel natural stimulus, Lemmo's cheetahs. Results revealed the broad reversal-related negativity for the face/vase and the reversible staircase but not for the cheetahs. This component is comparable to the SN in polarity, latency, and scalp topography. An effect of early visual spatial attention on figure reversals was suggested by an analysis of the occipital P1 and N1 components. The P1, N1, or both were enhanced for trials in which the observer reported perceptual reversals compared with trials in which no reversals were reported for the face/vase and reversible staircase stimuli. These results support a model of multistable perception in which changes in early spatial attention (indicated by P1 and N1 enhancement) modulate perceptual reversals (indicated by the reversal negativity or SN).

[1]  G. V. Simpson,et al.  Flow of activation from V1 to frontal cortex in humans , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[2]  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.

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

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

[5]  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.

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

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

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

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

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

[11]  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.

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

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

[14]  Hans-Jochen Heinze,et al.  Localizing visual discrimination processes in time and space. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

[16]  G. Mangun,et al.  Luminance and spatial attention effects on early visual processing. , 1995, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

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

[18]  Richard S. J. Frackowiak,et al.  Human brain activity during spontaneously reversing perception of ambiguous figures , 1998, 5th IEEE EMBS International Summer School on Biomedical Imaging, 2002..

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

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

[21]  Richard B Buxton,et al.  Putting spatial attention on the map: timing and localization of stimulus selection processes in striate and extrastriate visual areas , 2001, Vision Research.

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

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

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

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

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

[27]  Toshio Inui,et al.  Neural substrates for depth perception of the Necker cube; a functional magnetic resonance imaging study in human subjects , 2000, Neuroscience Letters.

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

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

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

[31]  S. Luck.  An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique , 2005 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[39]  W. Köhler.  Dynamics in Psychology , 1940 .

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

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

[42]  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.

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

[44]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Cortical sources of the early components of the visual evoked potential , 2002, Human brain mapping.

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

[49]  S. Luck,et al.  Sources of attention-sensitive visual event-related potentials , 2005, Brain Topography.

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

[51]  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.

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

[53]  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.

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

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

[56]  David A Leopold,et al.  Visual Perception: Shaping What We See , 2003, Current Biology.

[57]  P. Fox,et al.  Retinotopic organization of early visual spatial attention effects as revealed by PET and ERPs , 1997, Human brain mapping.