Visual perception of ambiguous figures: synchronization based neural models

Borisyuk, Roman; Chik, David; Kazanovich, Yakov

doi:10.1007/s00422-009-0301-1

Cited by 25 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…16 and associated text). The range of formal approaches to binocular rivalry in the literature is quite diverse (Blake, 1989;Borisyuk, Chik, & Kazanovich, 2009;Curtu et al, 2008;Gigante et al, 2009;Grossberg, 1987;Grossberg et al, 2008;Hohwy, Roepstorff, & Friston, 2008;Kalarickal & Marshall, 2000;Laing and Chow, 2002;Lehky, 1988;Moreno-Bote et al, 2007, 2010Mueller, 1990;Noest et al, 2007;Noest & van Wezel, 2012;Said & Heeger, 2013;Seely & Chow, 2011;Shpiro et al, 2009;Stollenwerk & Bode, 2003;Sundareswara & Schrater, 2008;Wilson, 2003Wilson, , 2007. Nevertheless, certain commonalities can be identified across many models that display aspects of the behavior reviewed above.…”

Section: Implications Of the (Modified) Propositions For Neural Mechamentioning

confidence: 90%

The ‘laws’ of binocular rivalry: 50 years of Levelt’s propositions

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been fifty years since Levelt's monograph On Binocular Rivalry (1965) was published, but its four propositions that describe the relation between stimulus strength and the phenomenology of binocular rivalry remain a benchmark for theorists and experimentalists even today. In this review, we will revisit the original conception of the four propositions and the scientific landscape in which this happened. We will also provide a brief update concerning distributions of dominance durations, another aspect of Levelt's monograph that has maintained a prominent presence in the field. In a critical evaluation of Levelt's propositions against current knowledge of binocular rivalry we will then demonstrate that the original propositions are not completely compatible with what is known today, but that they can, in a straightforward way, be modified to encapsulate the progress that has been made over the past fifty years. The resulting modified, propositions are shown to apply to a broad range of bistable perceptual phenomena, not just binocular rivalry, and they allow important inferences about the underlying neural systems. We argue that these inferences reflect canonical neural properties that play a role in visual perception in general, and we discuss ways in which future research can build on the work reviewed here to attain a better understanding of these properties.

show abstract

Section: Implications Of the (Modified) Propositions For Neural Mechamentioning

confidence: 90%

The ‘laws’ of binocular rivalry: 50 years of Levelt’s propositions

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The design of such a network and the necessary mechanisms for competition could build directly on our present model. Such networks have been used in studies of rhythm perception (Large et al, 2015) and in phenomenological studies of perceptual bistability (Borisyuk et al, 2009). Such a richer description would allow one to pursue the origin of the differential processing we propose here and to investigate the effects of temporal coherence, a strong cue in auditory stream segregation (Elhilali et al, 2009a).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus Pauses and Perturbations Differentially Delay or Promote the Segregation of Auditory Objects: Psychoacoustics and Modeling

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Segregating distinct sound sources is fundamental for auditory perception, as in the cocktail party problem. In a process called the build-up of stream segregation, distinct sound sources that are perceptually integrated initially can be segregated into separate streams after several seconds. Previous research concluded that abrupt changes in the incoming sounds during build-up—for example, a step change in location, loudness or timing—reset the percept to integrated. Following this reset, the multisecond build-up process begins again. Neurophysiological recordings in auditory cortex (A1) show fast (subsecond) adaptation, but unified mechanistic explanations for the bias toward integration, multisecond build-up and resets remain elusive. Combining psychoacoustics and modeling, we show that initial unadapted A1 responses bias integration, that the slowness of build-up arises naturally from competition downstream, and that recovery of adaptation can explain resets. An early bias toward integrated perceptual interpretations arising from primary cortical stages that encode low-level features and feed into competition downstream could also explain similar phenomena in vision. Further, we report a previously overlooked class of perturbations that promote segregation rather than integration. Our results challenge current understanding for perturbation effects on the emergence of sound source segregation, leading to a new hypothesis for differential processing downstream of A1. Transient perturbations can momentarily redirect A1 responses as input to downstream competition units that favor segregation.

show abstract

“…This type of network with a central element has been used for modeling selective attention Borisyuk & Kazanovich, (2003); Chik et al, (2009), novelty detection Borisyuk & Kazanovich, (2004), image object segmentation Wang & Terman, (1995); Borisyuk et al, (2009a), as well as visual perception of ambiguous figures Borisyuk et al, (2009b). In the present study, we borrow this modeling idea to consider a working memory system consisting of a Central Unit and some Memory Units.…”

Section: Model Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theta-alpha cross-frequency synchronization facilitates working memory control – a modeling study

Chik

2013

SpringerPlus

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite decades of research, the neural mechanism of central executive and working memory is still unclear. In this paper, we propose a new neural network model for the real-time control of working memory. The key idea is to consider separately the role of neural activation from that of oscillatory phase. Neural populations encoding different information would not confuse each other when the populations have different oscillatory phases. Depending on the current situation, relevant memories bind together through phase-locking between theta-frequency oscillation of a Central Unit and alpha-frequency oscillations of the relevant group of Memory Units. The Central Unit dynamically controls which Memory Units should be synchronized (and the encoded memory would be processed), and which units should be out of phase (the encoded memory is standby and would not be processed yet). Simulations of two working memory tasks are provided as examples. The model is in agreement with many recent experimental results of human scalp EEG analysis, which reported observations of neural synchronization and cross-frequency coupling during working memory tasks. This model offers a possible explanation of the underlying mechanism for these experiments.

show abstract

Visual perception of ambiguous figures: synchronization based neural models

Cited by 25 publications

References 73 publications

The ‘laws’ of binocular rivalry: 50 years of Levelt’s propositions

The ‘laws’ of binocular rivalry: 50 years of Levelt’s propositions

Stimulus Pauses and Perturbations Differentially Delay or Promote the Segregation of Auditory Objects: Psychoacoustics and Modeling

Theta-alpha cross-frequency synchronization facilitates working memory control – a modeling study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About