Reversibility of the Necker Cube: VI. Effects of Interpolating a Non-Riversing Cube

Orbach, J.; Zucker, Ellen

doi:10.2466/pms.1965.20.2.470

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This very ''bottom-up'' kind of interpretation can be reconciled with additional ''top-down'' concepts: First, prerequisite conditions in the neural network (e.g., appropriate weights of synaptic connectivity) must have been established beforehand (by early visual experience) to form these attractors in the first place. Reversal (switch to the other attractor) could then occur either bottom-up through neural adaptation (Long & Toppino, 1981;Long et al, 1983;Orbach et al, 1963Orbach et al, , 1966Orbach & Zucker, 1965) or through perturbation of the visual input, for example, by eye movements, blinks (Ellis & Stark, 1978;Gale & Findlay, 1983), or discontinuous presentation of the ambiguous figure like in the current experimental paradigm. Or reversal could be caused by top-down modulatory influences, for example, volition or attentional shifts (Girgus et al, 1977;Rock, Gopnik, et al, 1994;.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To assess whether potential ERP signals are specific correlates of the endogenous processing of perceptual reversals, a suitable reference (or ''template'') ERP would be advantageous. In some studies, opaque cubes were used as unambiguous variants of the Necker cube (O'Donnell et al, 1988;Orbach et al, 1963;Orbach & Zucker, 1965). This appears problematic, because (a) even opaque cubes are ambiguous and (b) low-level image statistics are not identical for test and control.…”

Section: Refined Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Explanations of perceptual reversal phenomena have followed two traditions, namely those of ''(passive) neural satiation'' and ''(active) centrally governed/attentional/cognitive or decision processes'': The first (''bottom-up'') tradition (Ko¨hler, 1940) assumes cycles of passive satiation (adaptation or fatigue are used synonymously in the pertinent literature) and recovery of neural units corresponding to each perceptual alternative. Many studies were interpreted as supporting this view (Babich & Standing, 1981;Brown, 1955;Carlson, 1953;Hochberg, 1950;Long & Toppino, 1981;Long, Toppino, & Kostenbauder, 1983;Orbach et al, 1963Orbach et al, , 1966Orbach & Zucker, 1965;Von Gru¨nau, Wiggin, & Reed, 1984). The second (''top-down'') tradition stresses attentional factors and a central autonomous process to cause reversals (Girgus, Rock, & Egatz, 1977;Rock, Gopnik, & Hall, 1994;Rock, Hall, & Davis, 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Early neural activity in Necker‐cube reversal: Evidence for low‐level processing of a gestalt phenomenon

Kornmeier

Bach²

2003

Psychophysiology

112

186

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Refined Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Early neural activity in Necker‐cube reversal: Evidence for low‐level processing of a gestalt phenomenon

Kornmeier

Bach²

2003

Psychophysiology

112

186

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Ogle (1962) mentions that the addition of perspective to the Necker cube and Schroder staircase produces a tendency to one percept. Orbach and Zucker (1965) report that removing those edges from a Necker cube which would be hidden if it were solid has a similar effect. It was found by Howard (1961) and Virsu (1975) that adding disparity to a skeletal wire cube and Schroder staircase, respectively, increases the initial period before a perceptual reversal.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

The Schröder staircase: A new perspective

Harris¹

1979

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A range of variants of the Schroder staircase was generated by computer, giving quantifiable changes of perspective and the option of adding appropriate texture to the steps of the staircase. Increases in perspective and the addition of texture gradients led to increases in the proportion of viewing time during which the percept appropriate to the perspective was reported. It is suggested that this might be a useful method of studying the processing of depth information.There are several reasons for supposing that the perceptual alternations of a class of reversible figures, which includes the Necker cube, Schroder staircase, and Mach card, are linked with depth processing mechanisms. First, subjects often describe such an alternation as a reversal of the apparent depth relationships within the figure. Secondly, adding depth cues to such figures can alter both the rate of alternation and the relative durations of the various percepts. A third line of evidence is much more indirect: although the alternation rate of a number of multistable figures changes with the subjects' viewing distance, that of depth reversible figures does not (Atkinson, Campbell, Fiorentini, & Maffei, 1973).The evidence that depth cues affect reversible figures is somewhat variable in its quality, ranging from brief anecdotal reports, through incidental observations, to experiments in which attempts were made to quantify both the depth information added to the reversible figure and the resulting changes in perceptual alternation. For example, Ogle (1962) mentions that the addition of perspective to the Necker cube and Schroder staircase produces a tendency to one percept. Orbach and Zucker (1965) report that removing those edges from a Necker cube which would be hidden if it were solid has a similar effect. It was found by Howard (1961) and Virsu (1975) that adding disparity to a skeletal wire cube and Schroder staircase, respectively, increases the initial period before a perceptual reversal. In a study of the Necker cube, Cormack and Arger (1968) reported that increases in disparity up to 45 min of arc both increased the durations of the percepts appropriate to the disparity and decreased the alter-. nation rate, but that a further increase to 90 min of arc had little additional effect. This last study, if I thank the MRC for support; Nick Markovits for his programs, advice, and help, without which the study would have been impossible; Ian Low for building the timers and printer; Philip Clark for photography; and Richard Gregory, David Rose, and Priscilla Heard for helpful comments. not unique, must be one of the few investigations in which the added depth cue has been systematically varied.These studies are usually said to tell us something about perceptual multistability. But it also seems plausible to argue that they tell us something about the way in which depth information is processed by the visual system. There are some assumptions necessary for this argument, which will now be considered. The first is that the kinds of perceptua...

show abstract

“…However, if the next stimulus occurs before recovery has finished, the novel adaptation adds to the remaining level at stimulus onset–and so on (like a saw-tooth, however with an overall increase of adaptation level, until a maximum is reached). In a follow-up study [ 71 ], the same group found that, presenting a disambiguated version of the Necker cube, changes the perceptual probabilities of the two interpretations of a subsequently presented ambiguous Necker cube. In another relevant study, Long et al [ 8 ] worked with two separate ambiguous figures, namely with the Necker cube and with overlapping squares.…”

Section: Discussion–experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Top-down resolution of visual ambiguity – knowledge from the future or footprints from the past?

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current theories about visual perception assume that our perceptual system weights the a priori incomplete, noisy and ambiguous sensory information with previous, memorized perceptual experiences in order to construct stable and reliable percepts. These theories are supported by numerous experimental findings. Theories about precognition have an opposite point of view. They assume that information from the future can have influence on perception, thoughts, and behavior. Several experimental studies provide evidence for precognition effects, other studies found no such effects. One problem may be that the vast majority of precognition paradigms did not systematically control for potential effects from the perceptual history. In the present study, we presented ambiguous Necker cube stimuli and disambiguated cube variants and systematically tested in two separate experiments whether perception of a currently observed ambiguous Necker cube stimulus can be influenced by a disambiguated cube variant, presented in the immediate perceptual past (perceptual history effects) and/or in the immediate perceptual future (precognition effects). We found perceptual history effects, which partly depended on the length of the perceptual history trace but were independent of the perceptual future. Results from some individual participants suggest on the first glance a precognition pattern, but results from our second experiment make a perceptual history explanation more probable. On the group level, no precognition effects were statistically indicated. The perceptual history effects found in the present study are in confirmation with related studies from the literature. The precognition analysis revealed some interesting individual patterns, which however did not allow for general conclusions. Overall, the present study demonstrates that any future experiment about sensory or extrasensory perception urgently needs to control for potential perceptual history effects and that temporal aspects of stimulus presentation are of high relevance.

show abstract

Reversibility of the Necker Cube: VI. Effects of Interpolating a Non-Riversing Cube

Cited by 8 publications

References 2 publications

Early neural activity in Necker‐cube reversal: Evidence for low‐level processing of a gestalt phenomenon

Early neural activity in Necker‐cube reversal: Evidence for low‐level processing of a gestalt phenomenon

The Schröder staircase: A new perspective

Top-down resolution of visual ambiguity – knowledge from the future or footprints from the past?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About