Cited by 182Visual perception and processing mechanismsMultisensory perception and integrationBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference

Bayesian sampling in visual perception

Open access
Moreno-Bote, Rubén, Knill, David C., Pouget, Alexandre·2011·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

It is well-established that some aspects of perception and action can be understood as probabilistic inferences over underlying probability distributions. In some situations, it would be advantageous for the nervous system to sample interpretations from a probability distribution rather than commit to a particular interpretation. In this study, we asked whether visual percepts correspond to samples from the probability distribution over image interpretations, a form of sampling that we refer to as Bayesian sampling. To test this idea, we manipulated pairs of sensory cues in a bistable display consisting of two superimposed moving drifting gratings, and we asked subjects to report their perceived changes in depth ordering. We report that the fractions of dominance of each percept follow the multiplicative rule predicted by Bayesian sampling. Furthermore, we show that attractor neural networks can sample probability distributions if input currents add linearly and encode probability distributions with probabilistic population codes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1101430108

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • In binocular rivalry, conscious experience alternates between the two images and cannot simultaneously represent inconsistent visual information, suggesting a bottleneck on conscious experience.

    “In binocular rivalry, a subject is shown a different image in each of their eyes. The subject's conscious experience flips back and forth between the two images (Moreno-Bote et al. 2011). Crucially, the subject cannot have simultaneous conscious experiences of inconsistent visual information. This suggests that there is a bottleneck on conscious experience.”

    From A Case for AI Consciousness: Language Agents and Global Workspace Theory (2024) · cites this paper as Moreno-Bote et al. 2011

  • The sampling viewpoint fits with current thinking in computational neuroscience, where an influential proposal is that transitions between brain states correspond to sampling from a probability distribution or multiple samples are represented simultaneously.

    “The sampling viewpoint also fits with current thinking in computational neuroscience, where an influential proposal is that transitions between brain states correspond to sampling from a probability distribution [26,27,81,82] or multiple samples are represented simultaneously (e.g., using particle filters [83][84][85][86]).”

    From Bayesian Brains without Probabilities (2016) · cites this paper as [27]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moreno-Bote, R., Knill, D. C., & Pouget, A.
Affiliations
  • Foundation Sant Joan de Déu, Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu, Esplugues de Llobregat, 08950 Barcelona, Spain; and
  • University of Rochester (US)
  • Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2011-07-08
Volume
108
Issue
30
Pages
12491-12496
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W1986194633
Cited by
182
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 10
FWCI
7.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative
  • National Eye Institute (EY-017939, R01EY017939, P30EY001319)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Keywords
Bayesian sampling, visual perception, probabilistic inference, bistable perception, depth ordering, perceptual dominance, attractor networks, drifting gratings, sensory cues
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Depth Perception, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Neurological, Nerve Net, Photic Stimulation, Visual Perception, Models, Statistical, Dominance, Ocular

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