Skip to main content
Log in

Visual Switching: The Illusion of Instantaneity and Visual Search

  • Published:
Review of Philosophy and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper questions two prima facie plausible claims concerning switching in the presence of ambiguous figures. The first is the claim that reversing is an instantaneous process. The second is the claim that the ability to reverse demonstrates the interpretive, inferential and constructive nature of visual processing. Empirical studies show that optical and cerebral events related to switching protract in time in a way that clashes with its perceived instantaneity. The studies further suggest an alternative theory of reversing: according to such alternative, seeing the same thing in multiple ways is a matter of uncovering what is already present to the senses through visual search.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A full argument for this position is provided elsewhere: Orlandi 2011b, c.

  2. See, Orlandi 2011a for a similar worry.

References

  • Attneave, F. 1968. Triangles as ambiguous figures. The American Journal of Psychology 81: 447–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bialystok, E. 2001. Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bialystok, E., and M. Martin. 2004. Attention and inhibition in bilingual children: Evidence from the dimensional change card sort task. Developmental Science 7: 325–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bialystok, E., and D. Shapero. 2005. Ambiguous benefits: The effect of bilingualism on reversing ambiguous figures. Developmental Science 8(6): 595–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaser, E., G. Sperling, and Z.L. Lu. 1999. Measuring the amplification of_attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA 96: 11681–11686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Brascamp, J.W., R. Ee, A.J. Noest, R.H. Jacobs, and A.V. van den Berg. 2006. The time course of binocular rivalry reveals a fundamental role of noise. Journal of Vision 6: 1244–1256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britz, J., et al. 2009. Right parietal brain activity precedes perceptual alternation of bistable stimuli. Cerebral Cortex 19: 55–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, O.Konkle, T. Wang, Q. Hayward, and C. Moore. 2008. Tactile rivalry demonstrated with ambiguous apparent motion quartet. Current Biology 18(14): 1050–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chastain, G., and C.A. Burnham. 1975. The first glimpse determines the perception of an ambiguous figure. Perception & Psychophysics 17(3): 221–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchland, P. 1989. Perceptual plasticity and theoretical Neutrality: A reply to Jerry Fodor. In his A Neurocomputational Perspective: the Nature of Mind and the Structure of Science. Cambridge: MIT.

  • Desimone, R., and J. Duncan. 1995. Neural mechanism of selective attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience 18: 198–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, A. 2002. Normal development of pre-frontal cortex from birth to young adulthood: cognitive functions, anatomy, and biochemistry. In Principles of frontal lobe functioning, ed. D. Stuss and R. Knight, 466–503. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, S.R., and L. Stark. 1978. Eye movements during the viewing of Necker cubes. Perception 7: 575–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J.A. 1983. Modularity of mind. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J.A. 1984. Observation reconsidered. Philosophy of Science 51: 23–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R.L. 1970. The intelligent eye. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J.J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Girgus, J., I. Rock, and R. Egatz. 1977. The effect of knowledge of reversibility on the reversibility of ambiguous figures. Perception & Psychophysics 22: 550–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glen, J.S. 1940. Ocular movements in reversibility of perspective. The Journal of General Psychology 23: 243–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopnik, A., and A. Rosati. 2001. Duck or rabbit? Reversing ambiguous figures and understanding ambiguous representations. Developmental Science 4(2): 175–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hohwy, J., A. Roepstorff, and K. Friston. 2008. Predictive coding explains binocular rivalry: An epistemological review. Cognitiion 108(3): 687–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilg, R., A.M. Wohlschlager, S. Burazanis, A. Woller, S. Nunnemann, and M. Muhlau. 2008. Neural correlates of spontaneous percept switches in ambiguous stimuli: An event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging study. The European Journal of Neuroscience 28(11): 2325–2332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • İşoğlu-Alkaç, Ü., C. Başar-Eroğlu, A. Ademoğlu, T. Demiralp, M. Miener, and M. Stadler. 1998. Analysis of the electroencephalographic activity during the Necker cube reversals by means of the wavelet transform. Biological Cybernetics 79: 437–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isoglu-Alkaç, Ü., C. Başar-Eroglu, A. Ademoglu, T. Demiralp, M. Miener, and M. Stadler. 2000. Alpha activity decreases during the perception of Necker cube reversals: An application of wavelet transform. Biological Cybernetics 82: 313–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ito, J., A.R. Nikolaev, M. Luman, M.F. Aukes, C. Nakatani, and C. van Leeuwen. 2003. Perceptual switching, eye movements, and the bus paradox. Perception 32: 681–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. 1997 [1781/1787]. Critique of Pure Reason (trans. P. Guyer and A. Wood). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Kleinschmidt, A., C. Buchel, S. Zeki, and R.S.J. Frackowiak. 1998. Human brain activity during spontaneously reversing perception of ambiguous figures. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London - Series B: Biological Sciences 265: 2427–2433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornmeier, J., and M. Bach. 2004. Early neural activity in Necker-cube reversal: Evidence for low-level processing of a gestalt phenomenon. Psychophysiology 41: 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornmeier, J., and M. Bach. 2005. The Necker cube – an ambiguous figure disambiguated in early visual processing. Vision Research 45: 955–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, G.M., and T.C. Toppino. 2004. Enduring interest in perceptual ambiguity: Alternating views of reversible figures. Psychological Bulletin 130(5): 748–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Blake, and Heeger. 2007. Hierarchy of cortical responses underlying binocular rivalry. Nature NeuroScience 10(2007): 1048–1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, D.A., and N.K. Logothetis. 1999. Multistable phenomena: Changing views in perception. Trends in Cognitive Science 3(7): 254–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marr, D. 1982. Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

  • Meng, M., and F. Tong. 2004. Can attention selectively bias bistable perception? Differences between binocular rivalry and ambiguous figures. Journal of Vision 4: 539–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mole, C. 2010. Attention is cognitive unison. Oxford University Press.

  • Nakatani, H., and C. van Leeuwen. 2005. Individual differences in perceptual switching rates; the role of occipital alpha and frontal theta band activity. Biological Cybernetics 93: 343–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakatani, H., and C. van Leeuwen. 2006. Transient synchrony of distant brain areas and perceptual switching in ambiguous figures. Biological Cybernetics 94: 445–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakatani, et al. 2012. Reversing as a dynamic process: variability of ocular and brain events in perceptual switching. Journal of Consciousness Studies 19(5-6): 117–140(24).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakatani et al. 2011. Precisely timed oculomotor and parietal EEG activity in perceptual switching. Cognitive Neurodynamics 5: 399–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noë, A. 2004. Action in perception. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlandi, N. 2011a. The innocent eye: Seeing-as without concepts. American Philosophical Quarterly 48: 1.

  • Orlandi, N. 2011b. Embedded seeing-as: Multi-stable visual perception without interpretation. Philosophical Psychology. doi:10.1080/09515089.2011.579425.

  • Orlandi, N. 2011c. Embedded seeing: Vision in the natural world. Nous. doi:10.1111/14680068.2011.00845.

  • Palmer, S.E. 1999. Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pastukhov, A., and J. Braun. 2007. Perceptual reversals need no prompting by attention. Journal of Vision 7(10): 17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M.I., and S. Peterson. 1990. The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience 13: 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressnitzer, D., and J.M. Hupé. 2006. Temporal Dynamis of auditory and visual bistability reveal common principles of perceptual organization. Current Biology 11: 1351–1357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pylyshyn, Z. 1999. Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 341–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pylyshyn, Z. 2009. Perception, representation and the world: The FINST that binds. Available online at: uccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/pylyshyn/Dedrick&TrickFinal.pdf

  • Remington, R.W. 1980. Attention and saccadic eye-movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 6: 726–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricci, C., and C. Blundo. 1990. Perception of ambiguous figures after focal brain lesion. Neuropsychologia 28: 1163–1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rock, I. 1983. The logic of perception. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rock, I.A., A.A. Gopnik, and S. Hall. 1994. Do young children reverse ambiguous figures? Perception 23: 635–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rock, I., and K. Mitchener. 1992. Further evidence of failure of reversal of ambiguous figures by uninformed subjects. Perception 21: 39–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ropar, D., P. Mitchell, and K. Ackroyd. 2003. Do children with autism find it difficult to offer alternative interpretations to ambiguous figures? British Journal of Developmental Psychology 21: 387–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sekuler, A.B., and S.E. Palmer. 1992. Perception of partly occluded objects: A microgenetic analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 121(1): 95–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slotnick, S.D., and S. Yantis. 2005. Common neural substrates for the control and effects of visual attention and perceptual bistability. Cognitive Brain Research 24: 97–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterzer, P., and A. Kleinschmidt. 2007. A neural basis for inference in perceptual ambiguity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 323–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tong, F., M. Meng, and R. Blake. 2006. Neural basis of binocular rivalry. Trends in Cognitive Science 10(11): 502–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toppino, T.C. 2003. Reversible-figure perception: Mechanisms of intentional control. Perception & Psychophysics 65: 1285–1295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dam, L.C., and R. van Ee. 2006. The role of saccades in exerting voluntary control in perceptual and binocular rivalry. Vision Research 46: 787–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eee, R., A.J. Noest, J.W. Brascamp, and A.V. van den Berg. 2006. Attentional control over either of the two competing percepts of ambiguous stimuli revealed by a two-parameter analysis: Means do not make the difference. Vision Research 46: 3129–3141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Ee, R. 2005. Dynamics of perceptual bi-stability for stereoscopic slant rivalry and a comparison with grating, house-face, ad Necker cube rivalry. Vision Research 45: 29–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Ee, R. 2009. Stochastic variations in sensory awareness are driven by noisy neuronal adaptation: Evidence from serial correlations in perceptual bistability. Journal of the Optical Society of America. A 26: 2612–2622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vettel, G., J.D. Haynes, and S. Pfaff. 2000. Evidence for multistability in the visual perception of pigeons. Vision Research 40(16): 2177–2186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Helmholtz, H. 1962[1867]. Treatise on physiological optics. Vol. 3. Translated from the German by J.P.C. Southall. New York: Dover.

  • Wollheim, R. 1980. Seeing-as, seeing in and pictorial representation. Arts and its objects: With six supplementary essays. Cambridge University Press.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Some of the research cited in this paper was conducted by Cees van Leeuwen and Hironori Nakatani at the Riken Laboratory for Perceptual Dynamics in Tokyo, Japan. Thanks to both for giving me the opportunity to work with them.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicoletta Orlandi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Orlandi, N. Visual Switching: The Illusion of Instantaneity and Visual Search. Rev.Phil.Psych. 3, 469–480 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-012-0098-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-012-0098-z

Keywords

Navigation