Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37794908›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

Studying perceptual bias in favor of the from-above Necker cube perspective in a goal-directed behavior.

Alexander Kuc, Vladimir Maksimenko, Andrey Savosenkov, Nikita Grigorev, Vadim Grubov, Artem Badarin, Victor Kazantsev, Susanna Gordleeva, Alexander Hramov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Alexander KucBaltic Center for Neurotechnology and Artificial Intelligence, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Kaliningrad, Russia.
Vladimir MaksimenkoBaltic Center for Neurotechnology and Artificial Intelligence, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Kaliningrad, Russia.
Andrey SavosenkovNeurodynamics and Cognitive Technology Laboratory, Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia.
Nikita GrigorevNeurodynamics and Cognitive Technology Laboratory, Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia.
Vadim GrubovBaltic Center for Neurotechnology and Artificial Intelligence, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Kaliningrad, Russia.
Artem BadarinBaltic Center for Neurotechnology and Artificial Intelligence, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Kaliningrad, Russia.
Victor KazantsevNeurodynamics and Cognitive Technology Laboratory, Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia.
Susanna GordleevaNeurodynamics and Cognitive Technology Laboratory, Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia.
Alexander HramovBaltic Center for Neurotechnology and Artificial Intelligence, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Kaliningrad, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When viewing a completely ambiguous image, different interpretations can switch involuntarily due to internal top-down processing. In the case of the Necker cube, an entirely ambiguous stimulus, observers often display a bias in perceptual switching between two interpretations based on their perspectives: one with a from-above perspective (FA) and the other with a from-below perspective (FB). Typically, observers exhibit a priori top-down bias in favor of the FA interpretation, which may stem from a statistical tendency in everyday life where we more frequently observe objects from above. However, it remains unclear whether this perceptual bias persists when individuals voluntarily decide on the Necker cube's interpretation in goal-directed behavior, and the impact of ambiguity in this context is not well-understood. In our study, we instructed observers to voluntarily identify the orientation of a Necker cube while manipulating its ambiguity from low (LA) to high (HA). Our investigation aimed to test two hypotheses: (i) whether the perspective (FA or FB) would result in a bias in response time, and (ii) whether this bias would depend on the level of stimulus ambiguity. Additionally, we analyzed electroencephalogram (EEG) signals to identify potential biomarkers that could explain the observed perceptual bias. The behavioral results confirmed a perceptual bias in favor of the from-above perspective, as indicated by shorter response times. However, this bias diminished for stimuli with high ambiguity. For the LA stimuli, the occipital theta-band power consistently exceeded the frontal theta-band power throughout most of the decision-making time. In contrast, for the HA stimuli, the frontal theta-band power started to exceed the occipital theta-band power during the 0.3-s period preceding the decision. We propose that occipital theta-band power reflects evidence accumulation, while frontal theta-band power reflects its evaluation and decision-making processes. For the FB perspective, occipital theta-band power exhibited higher values and dominated over a longer duration, leading to an overall increase in response time. These results suggest that more information and more time are needed to encode stimuli with a FB perspective, as this template is less common for the observers compared to the template for a cube with a FA perspective.

Indexed as

ambiguous imagesbottom-up processingEEGNecker cubeperceptual biastop-down processing

Identifiers

PMID37794908
PMCPMC10546315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.