Cited by 112Visual perception and processing mechanismsFace Recognition and PerceptionMultisensory perception and integration

Perceptual multistability predicted by search model for bayesian decisions.

Open access
Sundareswara, Rashmi, Schrater, Paul R.·2008·Journal of Vision

Abstract

Perceptual multistability refers to the phenomenon of spontaneous perceptual switching between two or more likely interpretations of an image. Although frequently explained by processes of adaptation or hysteresis, we show that perceptual switching can arise as a natural byproduct of perceptual decision making based on probabilistic (Bayesian) inference, which interprets images by combining probabilistic models of image formation with knowledge of scene regularities. Empirically, we investigated the effect of introducing scene regularities on Necker cube bistability by flanking the Necker cube with fields of unambiguous cubes that are oriented to coincide with one of the Necker cube percepts. We show that background cubes increase the time spent in percepts most similar to the background. To characterize changes in the temporal dynamics of the perceptual alternations beyond percept durations, we introduce Markov Renewal Processes (MRPs). MRPs provide a general mathematical framework for describing probabilistic switching behavior in finite state processes. Additionally, we introduce a simple theoretical model consistent with Bayesian models of vision that involves searching for good interpretations of an image by sampling a posterior distribution coupled with a decay process that favors recent to old interpretations. The model has the same quantitative characteristics as our human data and variation in model parameters can capture between-subject variation. Because the model produces the same kind of stochastic process found in human perceptual behavior, we conclude that multistability may represent an unavoidable by-product of normal perceptual (Bayesian) decision making with ambiguous images.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1167/8.5.12

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 39 · Cited by 112

Authors
Sundareswara, R., & Schrater, P. R.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Venue
Journal of Vision
Published
2008-05-23
Volume
8
Issue
5
Pages
12
ISSN
1534-7362 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2065609259
Cited by
112
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Vision (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Eye Institute (EY015261-01, R01EY015261)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
Keywords
perceptual multistability, Necker cube, Bayesian inference, perceptual decision making, Markov renewal processes, perceptual switching, posterior sampling, decay processes, ambiguous figures, perceptual bistability, temporal dynamics of perception
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Decision Making, Fixation, Ocular, Form Perception, Humans, Memory, Models, Neurological, Orientation, Photic Stimulation, Predictive Value of Tests

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