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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Attneave, F. 1968. Triangles as ambiguous figures. The American Journal of Psychology 81: 447–453.
Bialystok, E. 2001. Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Bialystok, E., and D. Shapero. 2005. Ambiguous benefits: The effect of bilingualism on reversing ambiguous figures. Developmental Science 8(6): 595–604.
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.
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.
Britz, J., et al. 2009. Right parietal brain activity precedes perceptual alternation of bistable stimuli. Cerebral Cortex 19: 55–65.
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.
Chastain, G., and C.A. Burnham. 1975. The first glimpse determines the perception of an ambiguous figure. Perception & Psychophysics 17(3): 221–224.
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.
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.
Ellis, S.R., and L. Stark. 1978. Eye movements during the viewing of Necker cubes. Perception 7: 575–581.
Fodor, J.A. 1983. Modularity of mind. Cambridge: MIT.
Fodor, J.A. 1984. Observation reconsidered. Philosophy of Science 51: 23–43.
Gregory, R.L. 1970. The intelligent eye. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gibson, J.J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
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.
Glen, J.S. 1940. Ocular movements in reversibility of perspective. The Journal of General Psychology 23: 243–281.
Gopnik, A., and A. Rosati. 2001. Duck or rabbit? Reversing ambiguous figures and understanding ambiguous representations. Developmental Science 4(2): 175–183.
Hohwy, J., A. Roepstorff, and K. Friston. 2008. Predictive coding explains binocular rivalry: An epistemological review. Cognitiion 108(3): 687–701.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kornmeier, J., and M. Bach. 2005. The Necker cube – an ambiguous figure disambiguated in early visual processing. Vision Research 45: 955–960.
Long, G.M., and T.C. Toppino. 2004. Enduring interest in perceptual ambiguity: Alternating views of reversible figures. Psychological Bulletin 130(5): 748–768.
Lee, Blake, and Heeger. 2007. Hierarchy of cortical responses underlying binocular rivalry. Nature NeuroScience 10(2007): 1048–1052.
Leopold, D.A., and N.K. Logothetis. 1999. Multistable phenomena: Changing views in perception. Trends in Cognitive Science 3(7): 254–264.
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.
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.
Nakatani, H., and C. van Leeuwen. 2006. Transient synchrony of distant brain areas and perceptual switching in ambiguous figures. Biological Cybernetics 94: 445–457.
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).
Nakatani et al. 2011. Precisely timed oculomotor and parietal EEG activity in perceptual switching. Cognitive Neurodynamics 5: 399–409.
Noë, A. 2004. Action in perception. Cambridge: MIT.
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.
Pastukhov, A., and J. Braun. 2007. Perceptual reversals need no prompting by attention. Journal of Vision 7(10): 17.
Posner, M.I., and S. Peterson. 1990. The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience 13: 25–42.
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.
Pylyshyn, Z. 1999. Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 341–423.
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.
Ricci, C., and C. Blundo. 1990. Perception of ambiguous figures after focal brain lesion. Neuropsychologia 28: 1163–1173.
Rock, I. 1983. The logic of perception. Cambridge: MIT.
Rock, I.A., A.A. Gopnik, and S. Hall. 1994. Do young children reverse ambiguous figures? Perception 23: 635–644.
Rock, I., and K. Mitchener. 1992. Further evidence of failure of reversal of ambiguous figures by uninformed subjects. Perception 21: 39–45.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tong, F., M. Meng, and R. Blake. 2006. Neural basis of binocular rivalry. Trends in Cognitive Science 10(11): 502–511.
Toppino, T.C. 2003. Reversible-figure perception: Mechanisms of intentional control. Perception & Psychophysics 65: 1285–1295.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Vettel, G., J.D. Haynes, and S. Pfaff. 2000. Evidence for multistability in the visual perception of pigeons. Vision Research 40(16): 2177–2186.
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.
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
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-012-0098-z