Article thumbnail

Predictive Context Influences Perceptual Selection during Binocular Rivalry

By Rachel N. Denison, Elise A. Piazza and Michael A. Silver


Prediction may be a fundamental principle of sensory processing: it has been proposed that the brain continuously generates predictions about forthcoming sensory information. However, little is known about how prediction contributes to the selection of a conscious percept from among competing alternatives. Here, we used binocular rivalry to investigate the effects of prediction on perceptual selection. In binocular rivalry, incompatible images presented to the two eyes result in a perceptual alternation between the images, even though the visual stimuli remain constant. If predictive signals influence the competition between neural representations of rivalrous images, this influence should generate a bias in perceptual selection that depends on predictive context. To manipulate predictive context, we developed a novel binocular rivalry paradigm in which rivalrous test images were immediately preceded by a sequence of context images presented identically to the two eyes. One of the test images was consistent with the preceding image sequence (it was the expected next image in the series), and the other was inconsistent (non-predicted). We found that human observers were more likely to perceive the consistent image at the onset of rivalry, suggesting that predictive context biased selection in favor of the predicted percept. This prediction effect was distinct from the effects of adaptation to stimuli presented before the binocular rivalry test. In addition, perceptual reports were speeded for predicted percepts relative to non-predicted percepts. These results suggest that predictive signals related to visual stimulus history exist at neural sites that can bias conscious perception during binocular rivalry. Our paradigm provides a new way to study how prior information and incoming sensory information combine to generate visual percepts

Topics: Neuroscience
Publisher: Frontiers Research Foundation
OAI identifier:
Provided by: PubMed Central

Suggested articles


  1. (1998). A hierarchical model of binocular rivalry.
  2. (2008). A neural representation of priorinformationduringperceptual inference.
  3. (2005). A theory of cortical responses.Philos.Trans.R.Soc.Lond.
  4. (1996). Activity changes in early visual cortex reflect monkeys’ percepts during binocular rivalry.
  5. (2011). Bayesian sampling in visual perception.
  6. (2008). Believing is seeing: expectations alter visual awareness.
  7. (1999). Binocular rivalry and visual awareness: the role of attention.
  8. (2007). bistability.
  9. (2004). Can attention selectively bias bistable perception? Differences between binocular rivalry and ambiguous figures.
  10. (2006). Demonstration of cue recruitment: change in visual appearance by means of Pavlovian conditioning.
  11. E.,andFriston,K.J.(2009).Themismatch negativity: a review of underlying mechanisms.
  12. (2006). Exogenous attention and endogenous attention influence initial dominance in binocular rivalry.
  13. (2009). Expectation(andattention)invisual cognition.
  14. (2011). Expectations change the signatures and timing of electrophysiological correlates of perceptual awareness.
  15. (2005). Eye-specific effects of binocular rivalry in the human lateral geniculate nucleus.
  16. (1984). Facilitation of length discrimination using real and imaged context frames. A m .J .P s y c h o l .97,
  17. (2007). Flash suppression and flashfacilitationinbinocularrivalry.
  18. Friston, K.(2008).Predictivecodingexplains binocularrivalry:anepistemological review. Cognition 108, 687–701. Hubbard,T.L.(2005).Representational momentum and related displacements in spatial memory: a review of the findings.
  19. (2011). Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
  20. (1997). How the brain learns to see objects and faces in an impoverished context.
  21. (1986). Illusory concomitant motion in ambiguous stereograms:evidencefornonstimuluscontributionstoperceptualorganization.
  22. (2001). Interocular rivalry revealed in the human cortical blind-spot representation.
  23. (2006). Local field potential reflects perceptual suppression in monkey visual cortex.
  24. (2007). Mechanisms of top-down facilitation in perception of visual objects studied by fMRI.
  25. (1977). Mental setaltersvisibilityof movingtargets.
  26. (2002). Motion illusions as optimal percepts.
  27. (2009). Natural images dominate in binocular rivalry.
  28. (2009). Neural activity in the visual thalamus reflects perceptual suppression.
  29. (2005). Neural correlates of binocular rivalry in the human lateral geniculate nucleus.
  30. (2011). Neural processes for intentional control of perceptual switching: a magnetoencephalography study.
  31. (2000). Neuronal activity in human primary visual cortexcorrelateswithperceptionduring binocular rivalry.
  32. (1989). Neuronal correlates of subjective visual perception.
  33. (2001). Neurophysiological investigationofthebasisofthefMRIsignal.
  34. No binocular rivalry in the LGN of alert macaque monkeys.
  35. (2004). Object perception as Bayesian inference. A n n u .R e v .P s y -chol.
  36. (2004). Objectbased attention determines dominance in binocular rivalry.
  37. (1992). On the computational architecture of the neocortex. II.Theroleof cortico-corticalloops.
  38. (2005). Past trials influence perception of ambiguousmotionquartetsthrough patterncompletion.Proc.Natl.Acad.
  39. (2008). Perceptual multistability predicted by search model for Bayesian decisions.
  40. (2006). Predictive codes for forthcoming perception in the frontal cortex.
  41. (2009). Predictive coding under the free-energy principle.Philos.Trans.R.Soc.Lond.
  42. (2011). Predictive context influences perceptual selection during binocular rivalry.
  43. (2009). Predominance of ground over ceiling surfaces in binocular rivalry.
  44. (1987). Probing the time course of representational momentum.
  45. (2003). Reversible-figure perception: mechanisms of intentional control.
  46. (1999). Rival ideas about binocular rivalry.
  47. (1995). Seeing motion behind occluders.
  48. (2009). Seeing the future: Natural image sequences produce “anticipatory”neuronal activity and bias perceptual report.
  49. (2008). Sensory memory for ambiguous vision.TrendsCogn.Sci.12,334–341.
  50. (2002). Shape perception reduces activity in human primary visual cortex.
  51. (2010). Specificity of face processing without awareness.
  52. (2002). Stableperceptionofvisuallyambiguous patterns.
  53. (2010). Stimulus predictability reduces responses in primary visual cortex.
  54. (2005). Synergistic effect of combined temporal and spatial expectations on visual attention.J.Neurosci.25,8259–8266.
  55. (2004). The Bayesian brain: the role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation.
  56. (2000). The effects of visual object priming on brain activation before and after recognition.
  57. (2008). The functional impact of mental imagery on conscious perception.
  58. (1971). The orientation specificity of two visualafter-effects.J.Physiol.(Lond.)
  59. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox.
  60. (1956). The role of content in binocular resolution. A m .J .P s y c h o l .
  61. (1997). The role of temporal cortical areas in perceptual organization.
  62. (2007). The role of voluntary and involuntaryattentioninselectingperceptual dominanceduringbinocularrivalry.
  63. (1979). The siteof binocularrivalrysuppression.
  64. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies.
  65. (2007). Top-down predictions in the cognitive brain.
  66. (2005). Traveling waves of activity in primary visual cortex during binocular rivalry.
  67. (2002). V1 activity is reduced during binocular rivalry.
  68. (2011). Visual attention: the past 25 years.
  69. (2002). Visual competition.
  70. (2011). Visual motion induces a forward prediction of spatial pattern.
  71. (1996). What is rivalling during binocular rivalry?
  72. (2008). What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.