ArticleJournal of vision2020
Circular inference in bistable perception.
Article in Journal of vision, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low-dose lysergic acid diethylamide alters subjective visual perception but not visual contrast surround suppression.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2026Article
- A dissociation between the use of implicit and explicit priors in perceptual inference.Communications psychology · 2024Article
- Conspiracy beliefs and perceptual inference in times of political uncertainty.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Bistable perception, precision and neuromodulation.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024Article
- Within-object element ambiguity allows for a strange illusion of alternating facial expression and structure.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- Representations of uncertainty: where art thou?Current opinion in behavioral sciences · 2021Review
- Top-down resolution of visual ambiguity - knowledge from the future or footprints from the past?PloS one · 2021Article
- A functional theory of bistable perception based on dynamical circular inference.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
- Psychotic Experiences in Schizophrenia and Sensitivity to Sensory Evidence.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When facing ambiguous images, the brain switches between mutually exclusive interpretations, a phenomenon known as bistable perception. Despite years of research, a consensus on whether bistability is driven primarily by bottom-up or top-down mechanisms has not been achieved. Here, we adopted a Bayesian approach to reconcile these two theories. Fifty-five healthy participants were exposed to an adaptation of the Necker cube paradigm, in which we manipulated sensory evidence and prior knowledge. Manipulations of both sensory evidence and priors significantly affected the way participants perceived the Necker cube. However, we observed an interaction between the effect of the cue and the effect of the instructions, a finding that is incompatible with Bayes-optimal integration. In contrast, the data were well predicted by a circular inference model. In this model, ambiguous sensory evidence is systematically biased in the direction of current expectations, ultimately resulting in a bistable percept.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.