Percept-choice sequences driven by interrupted ambiguous stimuli: A low-level neural model

Journal of Vision

Volumn 7, Issue 8, 2007, Pages 1-14

  Noest, A J ^a   van Ee, R ^a   Nijs, M M ^a   van Wezel, R J A ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Neural dynamics; Perceptual choice; Perceptual memory; Visual rivalry

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; HABITUATION; HUMAN; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOPHYSICS; VISION; VISUAL SYSTEM;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; HABITUATION, PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGIC; HUMANS; NEURAL NETWORKS (COMPUTER); NONLINEAR DYNAMICS; PSYCHOPHYSICS; VISUAL PATHWAYS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 34250813632     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15347362     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/7.8.10     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Alais, D., & Blake, R. (Eds.). (2004). Binocular rivalry. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press.
2. Blake, R., & Logothetis, N. K. (2002). Visual competition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3, 13-21.
3. Blake, R., Sobel, K. V., & Gilroy, L. A. (2003). Visual motion retards alternations between conflicting perceptual interpretations. Neuron, 39, 869-878.
4. Chen, X., & He, S. (2004). Local factors determine the stabilization of monocular ambiguous or binocular rivalry stimuli. Current Biology, 14, 1013-1017.
5. Cross, M. C., & Hohenberg, P. C. (1993). Pattern formation outside of equilibrium. Reviews of Modern Physics, 65, 851.
6. Euler, L. (1960). Additamentum I de Curvis elasticis; Methodus inveniendi lineas curvas maximi minimivi proprietate gaudentes (1744). In Euler Committee of the Swiss Academy of Sciences (Ed.), Opera Omnia I (vol. 24, pp. 231-297). Füssli, Zürich. Available at http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~euler/
7. Fairhall, A. L., Lewen, G. D., Bialek, W., & de Ruyter van Steveninck, R. R. (2001). Efficiency and ambiguity in an adaptive neural code. Nature, 412, 787-792.
8. Freeman, A. W. (2005). Multistage model for binocular rivalry. Journal of Neurophysiology, 94, 4412-4420.
9. Gold, J. I., & Shadlen, M. N. (2001). Neural computations that underlie decisions about sensory stimuli. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 10-16.
10. Guckenheimer, J., & Holmes, P. (1983). Nonlinear oscillations, dynamical systems, and bifurcations of vector fields. New York: Springer-Verlag.
11. Hock, H. S., Schöner, G., & Giese, M. (2003). The dynamical foundations of motion pattern formation: Stability, selective adaptation, and perceptual continuity. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 429-457.
12. Kalarickal, G. J., & Marshall, J. A. (2000). Neural model of temporal and stochastic properties of binocular rivalry. Neurocomputing, 32-33, 843.
13. Kanai, R., Moradi, F., Shimojo, S., & Verstraten, F. A. (2005). Perceptual alternations induced by visual transients. Perception, 34, 803-822.
14. Kim, Y.J., Grabowecky, M., & Suzuki, S. (2006). Stochastic resonance in binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 46, 392-406.
15. Kornmeier, J., & Bach, M. (2005). The Necker cube - An ambiguous figure disambiguated in early visual processing. Vision Research, 45, 955-960.
16. Krug, K. (2004). A common neuronal code for perceptual processes in visual cortex? Comparing choice and attentional correlates in V5/MT. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences, 359, 929-941.
17. Laing, C. R., & Chow, C. C. (2002). A spiking neuron model for binocular rivalry. Journal of Computational Neuroscience, 12, 39-53.
18. Lankheet, M. J. (2006). Unravelling adaptation and mutual inhibition in perceptual rivalry. Journal of Vision, 6(4):1, 304-310, http://journalofvision.org/6/4/1/, doi:10.1167/6.4.1.
19. Lehky, S. R. (1988). An astable multivibrator model of binocular rivalry. Perception, 17, 215-228.
20. Leopold, D. A., & Logothetis, N. K. (1996). Activity changes in early visual cortex reflect monkeys' percepts during binocular rivalry. Nature, 379, 549-553.
21. Leopold, D. A., Wilke, M., Maier, A., & Logothetis, N. K. (2002). Stable perception of visually ambiguous patterns. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 605-609.
22. Maier, A., Wilke, M., Logothetis, N. K., & Leopold, D. A. (2003). Perception of temporally interleaved ambiguous patterns. Current Biology, 13, 1076-1085.
23. Maloney, L. T., Dal Martello, M. F., Sahm, C., & Spillmann, L. (2005). Past trials influence perception of ambiguous motion quartets through pattern completion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 3164-3169.
24. Matsuoka, K. (1984). The dynamic model of binocular rivalry. Biological Cybernetics, 49, 201-208.
25. Murray, J. D. (1990). Mathematical biology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
26. Ooi, T. L., & He, Z. J. (1999). Binocular rivalry and visual awareness: The role of attention. Perception, 28, 551-574.
27. Orbach, J., Zucker, E., & Heath, H. A. (1963). Reversibility of the Necker cube. I. An examination of the concept of "satiation of orientation". Perceptual and Motor Skills, 17, 439-458.
28. Orbach, J., Zucker, E., & Olson, R. (1966). Reversibility of the Necker cube: VII. Reversal rate as a function of figure-on and figure-off durations. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 22, 615.
29. Pearson, J., & Clifford, C. G. (2004). Determinants of visual awareness following interruptions during rivalry. Journal of Vision, 4(3):6, 196-202, http://journalofvision.org/4/3/6/, doi:10.1167/4.3.6.
30. Pearson, J., & Clifford, C. W. (2005). Mechanisms selectively engaged in rivalry: Normal vision habituates, rivalrous vision primes. Vision Research, 45, 707-714.
31. van de Grind, W. A., van der Smagt, M. J., & Verstraten, F. A. (2004). Storage for free: A surprising property of a simple gain-control model of motion aftereffects. Vision Research, 44, 2269-2284.
32. Wilson, H. R. (2003). Computational evidence for a rivalry hierarchy in vision. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 14499-14503.