Can attention selectively bias bistable perception? Differences between binocular rivalry and ambiguous figures
Open Access
- 1 July 2004
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) in Journal of Vision
- Vol. 4 (7) , 2
- https://doi.org/10.1167/4.7.2
Abstract
It is debated whether different forms of bistable perception result from common or separate neural mechanisms. Binocular rivalry involves perceptual alternations between competing monocular images, whereas ambiguous figures such as the Necker cube lead to alternations between two possible pictorial interpretations. Previous studies have shown that observers can voluntarily control the alternation rate of both rivalry and Necker cube reversal, perhaps suggesting that bistable perception results from a common mechanism of top-down selection. However, according to the biased competition model of selective attention, attention should be able to enhance the attended percept and suppress the unattended percept. Here, we investigated selective attentional modulation of dominance durations in bistable perception. Observers consistently showed much weaker selective attentional control for rivalry than for Necker cube reversal, even for rivalry displays that maximized the opportunities for feature-, object-, or space-based attentional selection. In contrast, nonselective control of alternation rate was comparably strong for both forms of bistable perception and corresponded poorly with estimates of selective attentional control. Our results support the notion that binocular rivalry involves a more automatic, stimulus-driven form of visual competition than Necker cube reversal, and as a consequence, is less easily biased by selective attention.Keywords
This publication has 40 references indexed in Scilit:
- Brain areas involved in attentional control and perception of ambiguous figuresJournal of Vision, 2002
- Neural Mechanisms of Selective Visual AttentionAnnual Review of Neuroscience, 1995
- Satiation or availability? Effects of attention, memory, and imagery on the perception of ambiguous figuresPerception & Psychophysics, 1993
- Prime time: Fatigue and set effects in the perception of reversible figuresPerception & Psychophysics, 1992
- Further Evidence of Failure of Reversal of Ambiguous Figures by Uninformed SubjectsPerception, 1992
- Illusory concomitant motion in ambiguous stereograms: Evidence for nonstimulus contributions to perceptual organization.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1986
- Multiple Representations of the Same Reversible Figure: Implications for Cognitive Decisional InterpretationsPerception, 1981
- The effect of knowledge of reversibility on the reversibility of ambiguous figuresPerception & Psychophysics, 1977
- Selective attention and the control of binocular rivalryPerception & Psychophysics, 1974
- The role of accommodation in the control of binocular rivalryPerception & Psychophysics, 1971