Neural bases of binocular rivalry

Tong, Frank; Meng, Ming; Blake, Randolph

doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.09.003

Cited by 579 publications

(522 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

478

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The model is however interactionist (in the terminology of Tong, 2003) since it is essential to appreciate both activity at relatively higher levels where predictions are made and the nature of lower level activity in order to have a theoretical framework for understanding either. This accords with recent approaches to binocular rivalry that also stress the interactionist element (e.g., Blake & Logothetis, 2002;Nguyen, Freeman, & Alais, 2003;Tong et al, 2006). The interactionist perspective holds for any pair of levels that communicate with each other as top-down and bottomup throughout the brain.…”

Section: Top-down and Bottom-upsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…This further integrates the debate on how the primary findings on rivalry should be interpreted (Blake, 1989;Leopold & Logothetis, 1999;Tong et al, 2006). It does this by describing one unifying mechanism -prediction error minimisation -rather than a variety of different mechanisms (Blake & Logothetis, 2002).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Another view (to a large extent triggered by Logothetis, Leopold, & Sheinberg, 1996) stressed high-level competition among incompatible patterns. There are signs that these may merge in a view that stresses neural competition at multiple levels of the visual system (for review of this development, see Tong et al, 2006). A particular merger of top-down and bottom-up mechanisms in rivalry is central to our proposal too (for another detailed proposal, see Alais & Melcher, 2007).…”

Section: The Current Rivalry Debatementioning

confidence: 90%

“…A number of proposals have been made but the neurocognitive mechanism that explains this striking visual effect remains unresolved (for reviews and overviews, see Alais & Blake, 2005;Blake & Logothetis, 2002;Leopold & Logothetis, 1999;Tong, Meng, & Blake, 2006). There are recent formal models that can explain a growing number of psychophysical findings and which fit with a range of neurophysiological facts (Koene, 2006;Moreno-Bote, Rinzel, & Rubin, 2007; van Ee, Nijs, & van Wezel, 2007;Wilson, 2007), and there is a general trend towards approaches that integrate top-down and bottom-up 0010-0277/$ -see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are recent formal models that can explain a growing number of psychophysical findings and which fit with a range of neurophysiological facts (Koene, 2006;Moreno-Bote, Rinzel, & Rubin, 2007; van Ee, Nijs, & van Wezel, 2007;Wilson, 2007), and there is a general trend towards approaches that integrate top-down and bottom-up 0010-0277/$ -see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.010 processes in the brain (Tong et al, 2006); however, we believe the study of binocular rivalry may benefit from a principled theoretical framework that can motivate these new developments. Most approaches to rivalry stress the role of inhibition, adaptation and stochastic noise.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Predictive coding explains binocular rivalry: An epistemological review

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tBinocular rivalry occurs when the eyes are presented with different stimuli and subjective perception alternates between them. Though recent years have seen a number of models of this phenomenon, the mechanisms behind binocular rivalry are still debated and we still lack a principled understanding of why a cognitive system such as the brain should exhibit this striking kind of behaviour. Furthermore, psychophysical and neurophysiological (single cell and imaging) studies of rivalry are not unequivocal and have proven difficult to reconcile within one framework. This review takes an epistemological approach to rivalry that considers the brain as engaged in probabilistic unconscious perceptual inference about the causes of its sensory input. We describe a simple empirical Bayesian framework, implemented with predictive coding, which seems capable of explaining binocular rivalry and reconciling many findings. The core of the explanation is that selection of one stimulus, and subsequent alternation between stimuli in rivalry occur when: (i) there is no single model or hypothesis about the causes in the environment that enjoys both high likelihood and high prior probability and (ii) when one stimulus dominates, the bottom-up, driving signal for that stimulus is explained away while, crucially, the bottom-up signal for the suppressed stimulus is not, and remains as an unexplained but explainable prediction error signal. This induces instability in perceptual dynamics that can give rise to perceptual transitions or alternations during rivalry.

show abstract

Section: Top-down and Bottom-upsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: The Current Rivalry Debatementioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Predictive coding explains binocular rivalry: An epistemological review

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Multistable Visual Perception as a Gateway to the Neuronal Correlates of Phenomenal Consciousness

Panagiotaropoulos

Bülthoff

2013

Handbook of Experimental Phenomenology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rhythmic attentional sampling in autism

Fan,

Kolodny,

Woodard

et al. 2023

Autism Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals diagnosed with autism often display alterations in visual spatial attention toward visual stimuli, but the underlying cause of these differences remains unclear. Recent evidence has demonstrated that covert spatial attention, rather than remaining constant at a cued location, samples stimuli rhythmically at a frequency of 4–8 Hz (theta). Here we tested whether rhythmic sampling of attention is altered in autism. Participants were asked to monitor three locations to detect a brief target presented 300–1200 ms after a spatial cue. Visual attention was oriented to the cue and modified visual processing at the cued location, consistent with previous studies. We measured detection performance at different cue‐target intervals when the target occurred at the cued location. Significant oscillations in detection performance were identified using both a traditional time‐shuffled approach and a new autoregressive surrogate method developed by Brookshire in 2022. We found that attention enhances behavioral performance rhythmically at the same frequency in both autism and control group at the cued location. However, rhythmic temporal structure was not observed in a subgroup of autistic individuals with co‐occurring attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Our results imply that intrinsic brain rhythms which organize neural activity into alternating attentional states is functional in autistic individuals, but may be altered in autistic participants who have a concurrent ADHD diagnosis.

show abstract

Neural bases of binocular rivalry

Cited by 579 publications

References 79 publications

Predictive coding explains binocular rivalry: An epistemological review

Predictive coding explains binocular rivalry: An epistemological review

Multistable Visual Perception as a Gateway to the Neuronal Correlates of Phenomenal Consciousness

Rhythmic attentional sampling in autism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About