Cited by 546Visual perception and processing mechanismsPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceMultisensory perception and integration

Predictive coding explains binocular rivalry: an epistemological review

Open access
Hohwy, Jakob, Roepstorff, Andreas, Friston, Karl·2008·Cognition

Abstract

Binocular 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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.010

Cites

109 of 109 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The flip between the two percepts in binocular rivalry is a function of the balance between the two generative models of the visual input.

    “As such, the flip between the two percepts is a function of the balance between the two generative models of the visual input (Hohwy et al., 2008).”

    From The free-energy self: a predictive coding account of self-recognition (2014) · cites this paper as Hohwy et al., 2008

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Alais, D., & Blake, R. (Eds.). (2005). Binocular rivalry. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
  2. Mumford, D. (1992). On the computational architecture of the neocortex. Biological Cybernetics, 66(3), 241.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hohwy, J., Roepstorff, A., & Friston, K.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
Corresponding author
Hohwy, Jakob
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-09
Volume
108
Issue
3
Pages
687-701
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2157754891
Cited by
546
References
109
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 16
FWCI
5.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (088130)
  • Danmarks Grundforskningsfond
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
Keywords
binocular rivalry, predictive coding, empirical Bayes, perceptual alternation, prediction error, epistemology of perception
MeSH terms
Attention, Awareness, Bayes Theorem, Brain, Dominance, Cerebral, Humans, Motion Perception, Probability, Psychophysics, Visual Pathways, Visual Perception, Vision Disparity, Knowledge

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review