Early neural activity in Necker-cube reversal: evidence for low-level processing of a gestalt phenomenon.

Normally we experience the visual world as stable. Ambiguous figures provide a fascinating exception: On prolonged inspection, the "Necker cube" undergoes a sudden, unavoidable reversal of its perceived front-back orientation. What happens in the brain when spontaneously switching between these equally likely interpretations? Does neural processing differ between an endogenously perceived reversal of a physically unchanged ambiguous stimulus and an exogenously caused reversal of an unambiguous stimulus? A refined EEG paradigm to measure such endogenous events uncovered an early electrophysiological correlate of this spontaneous reversal, a negativity beginning at 160 ms. Comparing across nine electrode locations suggests that this component originates in early visual areas. An EEG component of similar shape and scalp distribution, but 50 ms earlier, was evoked by an external reversal of unambiguous figures. Perceptual disambiguation seems to be accomplished by the same structures that represent objects per se, and to occur early in the visual stream. This suggests that low-level mechanisms play a crucial role in resolving perceptual ambiguity.

[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]  R. Verleger.  Event-related potentials and cognition: A critique of the context updating hypothesis and an alternative interpretation of P3 , 1988, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[3]  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.

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

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

[6]  D. Reisberg,et al.  Diverting Subjects' Concentration Slows Figural Reversals , 1984, Perception.

[7]  J. Hochberg,et al.  Piecemeal organization and cognitive components in object perception: perceptually coupled responses to moving objects. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[8]  Wolzt,et al.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. , 2003, The Journal of the American College of Dentists.

[9]  G. Woodman,et al.  Event-related potential studies of attention , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[10]  Massimo Riani,et al.  Stochastic Models and Fluctuations in Reversal Time of Ambiguous Figures , 1977, Perception.

[11]  Thomas C. Toppino,et al.  Multiple Representations of the Same Reversible Figure: Implications for Cognitive Decisional Interpretations , 1981, Perception.

[12]  K. T. Brown,et al.  Rate of apparent change in a dynamic ambiguous figure as a function of observation-time. , 1955, The American journal of psychology.

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

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

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

[16]  B. Rockstroh,et al.  Slow potentials of the cerebral cortex and behavior. , 1990, Physiological reviews.

[17]  Carlson Vr.  Satiation in a reversible perspective figure. , 1953 .

[18]  Daniel Strüber,et al.  MEG alpha activity decrease reflects destabilization of multistable percepts. , 2002, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[19]  J ORBACH,et al.  Reversibility of the Necker Cube: VI. Effects of Interpolating a Non-Riversing Cube , 1965, Perceptual and motor skills.

[20]  Margaret Floy Washburn,et al.  The Influence of the Size of an Outline Cube on the Fluctuations of Its Perspective , 1931 .

[21]  D. Jeffreys,et al.  Source locations of pattern-specific components of human visual evoked potentials. I. Component of striate cortical origin , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[22]  S. Geisser,et al.  An Extension of Box's Results on the Use of the $F$ Distribution in Multivariate Analysis , 1958 .

[23]  A Kok,et al.  Event-related potentials to conjunctions of spatial frequency and orientation as a function of stimulus parameters and response requirements. , 1993, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

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

[25]  M. Grünau,et al.  The local character of perspective organization , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[26]  J. C. Flügel,et al.  THE INFLUENCE OF ATTENTION IN ILLUSIONS OF REVERSIBLE PERSPECTIVE , 1913 .

[27]  Ronald Olson,et al.  Reversibility of the Necker Cube: VII. Reversal Rate as a Function of Figure-on and Figure-off Durations , 1966 .

[28]  Thomas C. Toppino,et al.  As the cube turns: Evidence for two processes in the perception of a dynamic reversible figure , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[29]  I. Rock,et al.  The effect of knowledge of reversibility on the reversibility of ambiguous figures , 1977 .

[30]  R. Verleger.  On the utility of P3 latency as an index of mental chronometry. , 1997, Psychophysiology.

[31]  L. Standing,et al.  Satiation Effects with Reversible Figures , 1981, Perceptual and motor skills.

[32]  L Stark,et al.  Eye Movements during the Viewing of Necker Cubes , 1978, Perception.

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

[34]  I Rock,et al.  Do Young Children Reverse Ambiguous Figures? , 1994, Perception.

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

[36]  Michael Bach,et al.  Electrophysiological correlates of texture segregation in the human visual evoked potential , 1992, Vision Research.

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

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

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

[40]  D Vickers,et al.  A Cyclic Decision Model of Perceptual Alternation , 1972, Perception.

[41]  S. Luck,et al.  Are the Same Attentional Mechanisms Used to Detect Visual Search Targets Defined by Color, Orientation, and Motion? , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[42]  J. Hochberg.  Figure-ground reversal as a function of visual satiation. , 1950 .

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

[44]  Harald Atmanspacher,et al.  Correlates of Perceptive Instabilities in Event-Related Potentials , 2004, Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos.