Summary
Reversible figures such as the Necker cube are ambiguous visual patterns that support at least two markedly different perceptual organizations. During a period of continuous viewing, observers’ conscious experience fluctuates, alternating between the possible interpretations. Attempts to explain this multistable perceptual character of reversible figures traditionally have attributed reversals to either bottom-up (stimulus driven) or top-down (conceptually-driven) processes. In the former case, perceptual fluctuations are attributed to the alternating fatigue and recovery of competing cortical organizations. In the latter case, perception is thought to be analogous to a hypothesis-testing or problem-solving process that successively considers alternative “solutions” to the perceptual puzzle represented by a reversible figure. We argue for a hybrid theoretical framework in which both types of processes contribute to figure reversals. By explicitly recognizing the contributions of both lower-level sensory processes and higher-level cognitive processes, the hybrid approach can resolve apparent conflicts in the reversible figure literature by calling attention to the fact that different viewing conditions can differentially engage top-down and bottom-up processes. The approach also provides a framework for future research, encouraging work that addresses how bottom-up and top-down processes are coordinated and how their effects are integrated in determining conscious perceptual experience.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ammons, R. B., Ulrich, P., & Ammons, C. H. (1959). Voluntary control of perception of depth in a two-dimensional drawing. Proceedings of the Montana Academy of Sciences, 19, 160–168.
Andrews, T. J., Schluppeck, D., Homfray, D., Matthews, P., & Blakemore, C. (2002). Activity in the fusiform gyrus predicts conscious perception of Rubin’s Vase-Face illusion. NeuroImage, 17, 890–901.
Attneave, F. (1971). Multistability in perception. Scientific American, 225, 62–71.
Babich, S., & Standing, L. (1981). Satiation effects with reversible figures. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 52, 203–210.
Boring, E. G. (1930). A new ambiguous figure. American Journal of Psychology, 42, 444–445.
Boring, E. G. (1942). Sensation and perception in the history of experimental psychology. New York: Appleton Century.
Bruner, J. S., & Minturn, A. L. (1955). Perceptual identification and perceptual organization. Journal of General Psychology, 53, 21–28.
DiLollo, V., Enns, J. T., & Rensink, R. A. (2000). Competition for consciousness among visual events: The psychophysics of reentrant visual processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 481–507.
Dornic, S. (1967). Measurement of satiation in reversible figures. Studia Psychologica, 9, 18–24.
Gale, A. G., & Findlay, J. M. (1983). Eye movement patterns in viewing ambiguous figures. In R. Groner, C. Menz, D. F. Fisher, & R. A. Monty (Eds.), Eye movements and psychological functions: International views (pp. 145–168). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Garcia-Perez, M. A. (1989). Visual inhomogeneity and eye movements in multistable perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 46, 397–400.
Gregory, R. L. (1974). Choosing a paradigm for perception. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of perception. Volume 1: Historical and philosophical roots of perception (pp. 225–283). New York: Academic Press.
Harris, J. P. (1980). How does adaptation to disparity affect the perception of reversible figures? American Journal of Psychology, 93, 445–457.
Helmholtz, H. von (1962). Handbuch der Physiologischen Optik Vol. III. (Third ed.). (J. P. C. Southall, Trans.). New York: Dover. (Original work published 1910).
Kawabata, N. (1986). Attention and depth perception. Perception, 15, 563–572.
Kawabata, N., & Mori, T. (1992). Disambiguating ambiguous figures by a model of selective attention. Biological Cybernetics, 67, 417–425.
Kohler, W. (1940). Dynamics in psychology. New York: Liveright.
Kornmeier, J., & Bach, M. (2004). Early neural activity in Necker-cube reversal: Evidence for low-level processing of a gestalt phenomenon. Psychophysiology, 41, 1–8.
Leeper, R. (1935). A study of a neglected portion of the field of learning: The development of sensory organization. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 46, 41–75.
Leopold, D. A., & Logothetis, N. K. (1999). Multistable phenomena: Changing views in perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 254–264.
Liebert, R. M., & Burk, B. (1985). Voluntary control of reversible figures. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1307–1310.
Long, G. M., & Toppino, T. C. (1981). Multiple representations of the same reversible figure: Implications for cognitive decisional interpretations. Perception, 10, 231–234.
Long, G. M., & Toppino, T. C. (2004). The enduring interest in perceptual ambiguity: Alternating views of reversible figures. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 748–768
Long, G. M., Toppino, T. C., & Kostenbauder, J. F. (1983). As the cube turns: Evidence for two processes in the perception of a dynamic reversible figure. Perception & Psychophysics, 34, 29–38.
Long, G. M., Toppino, T. C., & Mondin, G. W. (1992). Prime time: Fatigue and set effects in the perception of reversible figures. Perception & Psychophysics, 52, 609–616.
Medin, D. L., Ross, B. H., & Markman, A. B. (2001). Cognitive psychology (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt.
Peterson, M. A., & Gibson, B. S. (1991). Directing spatial attention within an object: Altering the functional equivalence of shape descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 170–182).
Rock, I. (1975). An introduction to perception. New York: Macmillan.
Rubin, E. (1958). Figure and ground. In D. C. Beardslee & M. Wertheimer (Eds. & Trans.), Readings in perception (pp. 35–101). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. (Original work published in 1915).
Suzuki, S., & Peterson, M. A. (2000). Multiplicative effects of intention on the perception of bistable apparent motion. Psychological Science, 11, 202–209.
Tong, F. (2003). Primary visual cortex and visual awareness. Nature Reviews/Neuroscience, 4, 219–229.
Toppino, T. C. (2003). Reversible-figure perception: Mechanisms of intentional control. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 1285–1295.
Toppino, T. C., & Long, G. M. (1987). Selective adaptation with reversible figures: Don’t change that channel. Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 37–48.
Tsal, Y., & Kolbert, L. (1985). Disambiguating ambiguous figures by selective attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37A, 25–37.
Von Grunau, M. W., Wiggin, S., & Reed, M. (1984). The local character of perspective organization. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 319–324.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer-Verlag Tokyo
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Toppino, T.C., Long, G.M. (2005). Top-Down and Bottom-Up Processes in the Perception of Reversible Figures: Toward a Hybrid Model. In: Ohta, N., MacLeod, C.M., Uttl, B. (eds) Dynamic Cognitive Processes. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/4-431-27431-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/4-431-27431-6_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Tokyo
Print ISBN: 978-4-431-23999-4
Online ISBN: 978-4-431-27431-5
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)