1 / 35

Dynamics of perceptual bistability. Alternating perceptions of ambiguous scenes

Dive into the dynamics of perceptual bistability across visual and auditory modalities, with insights into neuronal-based and oscillator models. Explore mutual inhibition, attractor models, and using statistical constraints to refine perceptual exploratory strategies.

Download Presentation

Dynamics of perceptual bistability. Alternating perceptions of ambiguous scenes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Bradley et al, 1998 Dynamics of perceptual bistability. Alternating perceptions of ambiguous scenes J Rinzel, NYU NIST, 2011 What do we perceive when confronted with ambiguous sensory stimuli? w/ N Rubin, A Shpiro, R Curtu, R Moreno, E Montbrio, E Sussman

  2. In binocular rivalry: present different images to each eye. Do we perceive an averaged image or…?

  3. Dynamics of Perceptual Bistability • Visual modality: moving plaids; • Auditory modality: repeating triplet pattern • Neuronal-based models • Oscillator models -- • mutual inhibition + slow negative feedback (adaptation) • noise gives randomness to period • Attractor models – • noise driven, no alternation w/o noise • double-well potential: phenomenological model • Use stats to constrain models • Levelt II revisited: perceptual exploratory strategy • Auditory “objects” and alternations: ABA_ABA_… common principles. w/ N Rubin, A Shpiro, R Curtu, R Moreno, E Montbrio, E Sussman Funding: Swartz Foundation, NIH

  4. PLAID DEMO R Moreno, N Rubin Transparent + coherent.Some parameter variations.

  5. Triplet pattern (Van Noorden, 1975) -- possible ambiguityin auditory streaming. “galloping” Integration Sound parameters: DF = frequency difference PR = presentation rate Segregation Pressnitzer & Hupe, Current Biology, 2006

  6. IV: Levelt, 1968 Mutual inhibition with slow adaptation  alternating dominance and suppression

  7. r1 r2 f Input, I1 I2 r1 r2 a2 Slow adaptation, a1(t) u τdr1/dt = -r1 + S(-βr2 - φ a1+ I1) τa da1/dt = -a1 + fa(r1) τ dr2/dt = -r2 + S(-βr1 - φ a2+ I2) τa da2/dt = -a2 + fa(r2) τa >> τ , S(u)=1/(1+exp[(θ-u)/k]) Oscillator Models for Directly Competing Populations Two mutually inhibitory populations, corresponding to each percept. Firing rate model: r1(t), r2(t) Slow negative feedback: adaptation or synaptic depression. S, fa r1 No recurrent excitation …half-center oscillator w/ N Rubin, A Shpiro, R Curtu Wilson 2003; Laing and Chow 2003 Shpiro et al, J Neurophys 2007

  8. IV fa(u)=γu Alternating firing rates Adaptation slowly grows/decays Excessive symmetry adaptation LC model

  9. Five Regimes of Behavior, Common to Neuronal Competition Models Shpiro et al, J Neurophys 2006 Curtu et al, SIADS, 2008 Increasing Stimulus depression LC model Wilson’s model

  10. Math – adaptation model with adaptation dominant: φ > β / (1+τ). (I1=I2.) Dynamic states and stability depend on steepness of S and inhibition strength, β. Weak inhibition: SIM stable, for all I- no altern’ns Strong enough: then Hopf bifur’cns (2 of them) are supercritical and lead to anti-phase oscill’n. Very strong: multiple equilibria, pitchfork and, if stable, WTA. φ Five Regimes of Behavior, Common to Neuronal Competition Models Shpiro et al, J Neurophys 2006 Curtu et al, SIADS, 2008 φ depression LC model

  11. Fast/Slow Dynamics r1- nullcline r2- nullcline r1 = S(- β r2 - φ a1+ I1) r2 = S(- β r1 - φ a2+ I2) r2 r1 Fast-Slow dissection: r1 , r2 fast variables a1 , a2 slow variables Decision making models, XJ Wang… a1, a2 frozen

  12. Switching occurs when a1-a2 traj reaches a curve of SNs (knees) r2 a2 r1 a1 r1-r2 phase plane, slowly drifting nullclines • At a switch: • saddle-node in fast dynamics. • dominant r is high while system rides • near “threshold”of suppressed populn’s • nullcline  ESCAPE. r1- nullcline r2- nullcline β =0.9, I1=I2=1.4

  13. net input net input Small I, “release” input Large I, “escape” Dominant, a ↑ I – φ a I + α a – φ a θ θ Suppressed, a ↓ I – φ a - β Recurrent excitation, secures “escape” Switching due to adaptation: release or escape mechanism S rj = S(input to j) = S(- β rk - φ aj+ Ij) f

  14. Noise leads to random dominance durations and eliminates WTA behavior. τdri/dt = -ri+ S(-βrj - φ ai+ Ii + ni) τa dai/dt = -ai + fa(ri) Added to stimulus I1,2 s.d., σ= 0.03, τn= 10 Model with synaptic depression

  15. Noise-Driven Attractor Models w/ R Moreno, N Rubin J Neurophys 2007

  16. Noise-Driven Attractor Models w/ R Moreno, N Rubin J Neurophys 2007 No oscillations if noise is absent. Kramers 1940 Noise-induced bursting. Sukbin Lim, NYU

  17. LP-IV in an attractor model IV 2D model 1D model

  18. WTA activity rA=rB OSC gA= gB Compare dynamical skeletons: “oscillator” and attractor-based models

  19. Dynamical properties of a network with spiking neurons. Simulation results. Levelt II 100 LIF units/ popul’n distribution

  20. Neuronal correlates of alternations Sheinberg and Logothetis, 1997 fMRI: Tong et al, 1998 fMRI: Polonsky et al, 2000 Electrophysiology: Leopold, Logothetis…

  21. fMRI MEG From Sterzer et al, review, TICS, 2009 Rubin’s face-vase: early visual cortex. Parkkonen et al, PNAS, 2008

  22. With noise 1 sec < mean T < 10 sec 0.4 < CV < 0.6 Noise-free Difficult to arrange high CV and high <T> in OSC regime. Observed variability and mean duration constrain the model.

  23. With noise Favored: noise-driven attractor with weak adaptation – but not far from oscillator regime.

  24. TA TB contrast B contrast B contrast A LP-II is not valid for all contrast values … LP-II in binocular rivalry Parameter dependence of mean T and f: 0.5 Eye B fraction B contrast A Eye A 0 0.14 contrast B ??? w/ Moreno, Shpiro, Rubin

  25. Plaids with different wavelengths  depth reversals Transparent + different frequencies.

  26. Levelt’s II generalized, Moreno et al, J Vision (2010), ‘Parameter manipulation of an ambiguous stimulus affects mostly the mean dominance duration of the stronger percept.’ also Brascamp et al 2006 Alternation: a perceptual exploration strategy. Percent dominance reflects brain’s estimate of probability of depth. #1 behind #1 behind w/ Moreno, Shpiro, Rubin J of Vision, 2010

  27. Maximum alternation rate at equidominance n=4 rivalry depth reversals plaids Moreno-Bote et al, J of Vision, 2010.

  28. Models: Input normalization and maximum alternation rate at equidominance Alternation rate fraction of dominance w/ Moreno, Shpiro, Rubin

  29. Temporal dynamics of auditory and visual bistability – common principles of perceptual organization. Pressnitzer & Hupe, 2006 Van Noorden, 1975

  30. Visual Temporal dynamics of auditory and visual bistability – common principles of perceptual organization. Pressnitzer & Hupe, 2006 Integrated or segregated percepts Grouped or split percepts Exclusivity, randomness, and inevitability Leopold & Logothetis, 1999

  31. Visual Temporal dynamics of auditory and visual bistability – common principles of perceptual organization. Pressnitzer & Hupe, 2006 Integrated or segregated percepts Grouped or split percepts Bistability/alternationin auditory streaming – integration (galloping) or segregation. 3 STs 4 STs Tone duration 120 ms, 3 STs, A=440 Hz, B=523 Hz

  32. Visual Auditory Temporal dynamics of auditory and visual bistability – common principles of perceptual organization. Pressnitzer & Hupe, 2006 Integrated or segregated percepts Grouped or split percepts Exclusivity, randomness, and inevitability Leopold & Logothetis, 1999 w/ Montbrio

  33. Direct demonstration of bistability for range of DF w/ Sussman, Montbrio ascend descend Tone duration 120ms, 4 reps

  34. SUMMARY • Visual & auditory modality • Neuronal-based models • Oscillator models -- • mutual inhibition + slow negative feedback (adaptation) • noise gives randomness to period • Attractor models – • noise driven, no alternation w/o noise • double-well potential: phenomenological model • Use stats to constrain models • Levelt II revisited: perceptual exploratory strategy • Auditory “objects” and alternations: ABA_ABA_… common principles. w/ N Rubin, A Shpiro, R Curtu, R Moreno, E Montbrio, E Sussman Other works: Dayan ‘98, Lehky ‘88, Grossberg ’87, Wilson ‘01 Funding: Swartz Foundation, NIH

  35. Schematic of bistability and hysteresis DF a1 adaptation a1 Some range of DF has bistability Range of a1for bistability Range of DF for bistability DF* #1 dominant & adapting DF = DF*, fixed #1 comes “on” r1 firing rate #1 goes “off” #1 suppressed & recovering from adaptation

More Related