Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 469–480 | Cite as

Visual Switching: The Illusion of Instantaneity and Visual Search

Article

Abstract

This paper questions two prima facie plausible claims concerning switching in the presence of ambiguous figures. The first is the claim that reversing is an instantaneous process. The second is the claim that the ability to reverse demonstrates the interpretive, inferential and constructive nature of visual processing. Empirical studies show that optical and cerebral events related to switching protract in time in a way that clashes with its perceived instantaneity. The studies further suggest an alternative theory of reversing: according to such alternative, seeing the same thing in multiple ways is a matter of uncovering what is already present to the senses through visual search.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Some of the research cited in this paper was conducted by Cees van Leeuwen and Hironori Nakatani at the Riken Laboratory for Perceptual Dynamics in Tokyo, Japan. Thanks to both for giving me the opportunity to work with them.

References

  1. Attneave, F. 1968. Triangles as ambiguous figures. The American Journal of Psychology 81: 447–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bialystok, E. 2001. Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bialystok, E., and M. Martin. 2004. Attention and inhibition in bilingual children: Evidence from the dimensional change card sort task. Developmental Science 7: 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bialystok, E., and D. Shapero. 2005. Ambiguous benefits: The effect of bilingualism on reversing ambiguous figures. Developmental Science 8(6): 595–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blaser, E., G. Sperling, and Z.L. Lu. 1999. Measuring the amplification of_attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA 96: 11681–11686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. van Brascamp, J.W., R. Ee, A.J. Noest, R.H. Jacobs, and A.V. van den Berg. 2006. The time course of binocular rivalry reveals a fundamental role of noise. Journal of Vision 6: 1244–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Britz, J., et al. 2009. Right parietal brain activity precedes perceptual alternation of bistable stimuli. Cerebral Cortex 19: 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carter, O.Konkle, T. Wang, Q. Hayward, and C. Moore. 2008. Tactile rivalry demonstrated with ambiguous apparent motion quartet. Current Biology 18(14): 1050–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chastain, G., and C.A. Burnham. 1975. The first glimpse determines the perception of an ambiguous figure. Perception & Psychophysics 17(3): 221–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Churchland, P. 1989. Perceptual plasticity and theoretical Neutrality: A reply to Jerry Fodor. In his A Neurocomputational Perspective: the Nature of Mind and the Structure of Science. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  11. Desimone, R., and J. Duncan. 1995. Neural mechanism of selective attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience 18: 198–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diamond, A. 2002. Normal development of pre-frontal cortex from birth to young adulthood: cognitive functions, anatomy, and biochemistry. In Principles of frontal lobe functioning, ed. D. Stuss and R. Knight, 466–503. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ellis, S.R., and L. Stark. 1978. Eye movements during the viewing of Necker cubes. Perception 7: 575–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fodor, J.A. 1983. Modularity of mind. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  15. Fodor, J.A. 1984. Observation reconsidered. Philosophy of Science 51: 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gregory, R.L. 1970. The intelligent eye. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  17. Gibson, J.J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  18. Girgus, J., I. Rock, and R. Egatz. 1977. The effect of knowledge of reversibility on the reversibility of ambiguous figures. Perception & Psychophysics 22: 550–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glen, J.S. 1940. Ocular movements in reversibility of perspective. The Journal of General Psychology 23: 243–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gopnik, A., and A. Rosati. 2001. Duck or rabbit? Reversing ambiguous figures and understanding ambiguous representations. Developmental Science 4(2): 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hohwy, J., A. Roepstorff, and K. Friston. 2008. Predictive coding explains binocular rivalry: An epistemological review. Cognitiion 108(3): 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ilg, R., A.M. Wohlschlager, S. Burazanis, A. Woller, S. Nunnemann, and M. Muhlau. 2008. Neural correlates of spontaneous percept switches in ambiguous stimuli: An event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging study. The European Journal of Neuroscience 28(11): 2325–2332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. İşoğlu-Alkaç, Ü., C. Başar-Eroğlu, A. Ademoğlu, T. Demiralp, M. Miener, and M. Stadler. 1998. Analysis of the electroencephalographic activity during the Necker cube reversals by means of the wavelet transform. Biological Cybernetics 79: 437–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Isoglu-Alkaç, Ü., C. Başar-Eroglu, A. Ademoglu, T. Demiralp, M. Miener, and M. Stadler. 2000. Alpha activity decreases during the perception of Necker cube reversals: An application of wavelet transform. Biological Cybernetics 82: 313–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ito, J., A.R. Nikolaev, M. Luman, M.F. Aukes, C. Nakatani, and C. van Leeuwen. 2003. Perceptual switching, eye movements, and the bus paradox. Perception 32: 681–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kant, I. 1997 [1781/1787]. Critique of Pure Reason (trans. P. Guyer and A. Wood). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kleinschmidt, A., C. Buchel, S. Zeki, and R.S.J. Frackowiak. 1998. Human brain activity during spontaneously reversing perception of ambiguous figures. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London - Series B: Biological Sciences 265: 2427–2433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kornmeier, J., and M. Bach. 2004. Early neural activity in Necker-cube reversal: Evidence for low-level processing of a gestalt phenomenon. Psychophysiology 41: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kornmeier, J., and M. Bach. 2005. The Necker cube – an ambiguous figure disambiguated in early visual processing. Vision Research 45: 955–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Long, G.M., and T.C. Toppino. 2004. Enduring interest in perceptual ambiguity: Alternating views of reversible figures. Psychological Bulletin 130(5): 748–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee, Blake, and Heeger. 2007. Hierarchy of cortical responses underlying binocular rivalry. Nature NeuroScience 10(2007): 1048–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leopold, D.A., and N.K. Logothetis. 1999. Multistable phenomena: Changing views in perception. Trends in Cognitive Science 3(7): 254–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marr, D. 1982. Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  34. Meng, M., and F. Tong. 2004. Can attention selectively bias bistable perception? Differences between binocular rivalry and ambiguous figures. Journal of Vision 4: 539–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mole, C. 2010. Attention is cognitive unison. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Nakatani, H., and C. van Leeuwen. 2005. Individual differences in perceptual switching rates; the role of occipital alpha and frontal theta band activity. Biological Cybernetics 93: 343–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nakatani, H., and C. van Leeuwen. 2006. Transient synchrony of distant brain areas and perceptual switching in ambiguous figures. Biological Cybernetics 94: 445–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nakatani, et al. 2012. Reversing as a dynamic process: variability of ocular and brain events in perceptual switching. Journal of Consciousness Studies 19(5-6): 117–140(24).Google Scholar
  39. Nakatani et al. 2011. Precisely timed oculomotor and parietal EEG activity in perceptual switching. Cognitive Neurodynamics 5: 399–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Noë, A. 2004. Action in perception. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  41. Orlandi, N. 2011a. The innocent eye: Seeing-as without concepts. American Philosophical Quarterly 48: 1.Google Scholar
  42. Orlandi, N. 2011b. Embedded seeing-as: Multi-stable visual perception without interpretation. Philosophical Psychology. doi: 10.1080/09515089.2011.579425.
  43. Orlandi, N. 2011c. Embedded seeing: Vision in the natural world. Nous. doi: 10.1111/14680068.2011.00845.
  44. Palmer, S.E. 1999. Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  45. Pastukhov, A., and J. Braun. 2007. Perceptual reversals need no prompting by attention. Journal of Vision 7(10): 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Posner, M.I., and S. Peterson. 1990. The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience 13: 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pressnitzer, D., and J.M. Hupé. 2006. Temporal Dynamis of auditory and visual bistability reveal common principles of perceptual organization. Current Biology 11: 1351–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pylyshyn, Z. 1999. Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 341–423.Google Scholar
  49. Pylyshyn, Z. 2009. Perception, representation and the world: The FINST that binds. Available online at: uccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/pylyshyn/Dedrick&TrickFinal.pdf
  50. Remington, R.W. 1980. Attention and saccadic eye-movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 6: 726–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ricci, C., and C. Blundo. 1990. Perception of ambiguous figures after focal brain lesion. Neuropsychologia 28: 1163–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rock, I. 1983. The logic of perception. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  53. Rock, I.A., A.A. Gopnik, and S. Hall. 1994. Do young children reverse ambiguous figures? Perception 23: 635–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rock, I., and K. Mitchener. 1992. Further evidence of failure of reversal of ambiguous figures by uninformed subjects. Perception 21: 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ropar, D., P. Mitchell, and K. Ackroyd. 2003. Do children with autism find it difficult to offer alternative interpretations to ambiguous figures? British Journal of Developmental Psychology 21: 387–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sekuler, A.B., and S.E. Palmer. 1992. Perception of partly occluded objects: A microgenetic analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 121(1): 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Slotnick, S.D., and S. Yantis. 2005. Common neural substrates for the control and effects of visual attention and perceptual bistability. Cognitive Brain Research 24: 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sterzer, P., and A. Kleinschmidt. 2007. A neural basis for inference in perceptual ambiguity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 323–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tong, F., M. Meng, and R. Blake. 2006. Neural basis of binocular rivalry. Trends in Cognitive Science 10(11): 502–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Toppino, T.C. 2003. Reversible-figure perception: Mechanisms of intentional control. Perception & Psychophysics 65: 1285–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van Dam, L.C., and R. van Ee. 2006. The role of saccades in exerting voluntary control in perceptual and binocular rivalry. Vision Research 46: 787–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. van Eee, R., A.J. Noest, J.W. Brascamp, and A.V. van den Berg. 2006. Attentional control over either of the two competing percepts of ambiguous stimuli revealed by a two-parameter analysis: Means do not make the difference. Vision Research 46: 3129–3141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. van Ee, R. 2005. Dynamics of perceptual bi-stability for stereoscopic slant rivalry and a comparison with grating, house-face, ad Necker cube rivalry. Vision Research 45: 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. van Ee, R. 2009. Stochastic variations in sensory awareness are driven by noisy neuronal adaptation: Evidence from serial correlations in perceptual bistability. Journal of the Optical Society of America. A 26: 2612–2622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vettel, G., J.D. Haynes, and S. Pfaff. 2000. Evidence for multistability in the visual perception of pigeons. Vision Research 40(16): 2177–2186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. von Helmholtz, H. 1962[1867]. Treatise on physiological optics. Vol. 3. Translated from the German by J.P.C. Southall. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  67. Wollheim, R. 1980. Seeing-as, seeing in and pictorial representation. Arts and its objects: With six supplementary essays. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy and Cognitive ScienceRice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations