A different view on the Necker cube-Differences in multistable perception dynamics between Asperger and non-Asperger observers.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Public Library of Science Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101285081 Publication Model: eCollection Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1932-6203 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 19326203 NLM ISO Abbreviation: PLoS One Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: San Francisco, CA : Public Library of Science
    • Subject Terms:
      Form Perception*; Asperger Syndrome/*psychology; Adult ; Asperger Syndrome/diagnosis ; Case-Control Studies ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Pattern Recognition, Visual ; Photic Stimulation ; Visual Perception
    • Abstract:
      Background: During observation of the Necker cube perception becomes unstable and alternates repeatedly between a from-above-perspective ("fap") and a from-below-perspective ("fbp") interpretation. Both interpretations are physically equally plausible, however, observers usually show an a priori top-down bias in favor of the fap interpretation. Patients with Autism spectrum disorder are known to show an altered pattern of perception with a focus on sensory details. In the present study we tested whether this altered perceptual processing affects their reversal dynamics and reduces the perceptual bias during Necker cube observation.
      Methods: 19 participants with Asperger syndrome and 16 healthy controls observed a Necker cube stimulus continuously for 5 minutes and indicated perceptual reversals by key press. We compared reversal rates (number of reversals per minute) and the distributions of dwell times for the two interpretations between observer groups.
      Results: Asperger participants showed less perceptual reversal than controls. Six Asperger participants did not perceive any reversal at all, whereas all observers from the control group perceived at least five reversals within the five minutes observation time. Further, control participants showed the typical perceptual bias with significant longer median dwell times for the fap compared to the fbp interpretation. No such perceptual bias was found in the Asperger group.
      Discussion: The perceptual system weights the incomplete and ambiguous sensory input with memorized concepts in order to construct stable and reliable percepts. In the case of the Necker cube stimulus, two perceptual interpretations are equally compatible with the sensory information and internal fluctuations may cause perceptual alternations between them-with a slightly larger probability value for the fap interpretation (perceptual bias). Smaller reversal rates in Asperger observers may result from the dominance of bottom-up sensory input over endogenous top-down factors. The latter may also explain the absence of a fap bias.
    • References:
      J Autism Dev Disord. 2000 Jun;30(3):205-23. (PMID: 11055457)
      JAMA. 2000 Dec 20;284(23):3043-5. (PMID: 11122593)
      J Autism Dev Disord. 2001 Feb;31(1):5-17. (PMID: 11439754)
      Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2003 Apr;13(2):150-8. (PMID: 12744967)
      Neuroreport. 2003 Jul 18;14(10):1347-52. (PMID: 12876471)
      J Autism Dev Disord. 2003 Aug;33(4):427-33. (PMID: 12959421)
      Am J Psychol. 1955 Sep;68(3):358-71. (PMID: 13248970)
      Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1961 Jun;4:561-71. (PMID: 13688369)
      Percept Mot Skills. 1963 Oct;17:625-6. (PMID: 14057288)
      Psychophysiology. 2004 Jan;41(1):1-8. (PMID: 14692995)
      Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:271-304. (PMID: 14744217)
      J Autism Dev Disord. 2004 Apr;34(2):163-75. (PMID: 15162935)
      Psychol Bull. 2004 Sep;130(5):748-68. (PMID: 15367079)
      Z Kinder Jugendpsychiatr Psychother. 2005 Jan;33(1):27-34. (PMID: 15714838)
      J Vis. 2005 Apr 04;5(4):287-98. (PMID: 15929652)
      J Neurophysiol. 2007 Sep;98(3):1125-39. (PMID: 17615138)
      J Autism Dev Disord. 2008 May;38(5):840-7. (PMID: 18004653)
      PLoS Comput Biol. 2009 Jul;5(7):e1000430. (PMID: 19593372)
      Vision Res. 2009 Nov;49(22):2705-39. (PMID: 19682485)
      Neuroimage. 2010 Sep;52(3):740-51. (PMID: 20083212)
      PLoS One. 2010 Mar 04;5(3):e9553. (PMID: 20209050)
      Autism. 2011 Jul;15(4):457-72. (PMID: 21486897)
      Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Mar 22;6:51. (PMID: 22461773)
      Trends Cogn Sci. 2012 Oct;16(10):504-10. (PMID: 22959875)
      Vision Res. 2013 Jan 25;77:59-66. (PMID: 23200868)
      Vision Res. 2013 Jan 25;77:32-40. (PMID: 23206550)
      J Autism Dev Disord. 2013 Oct;43(10):2329-40. (PMID: 23378063)
      PLoS One. 2013 Oct 04;8(10):e76134. (PMID: 24124536)
      J Neurosci. 2013 Oct 23;33(43):16983-91. (PMID: 24155303)
      PLoS One. 2014 Mar 14;9(3):e90993. (PMID: 24632708)
      Front Psychol. 2014 May 06;5:348. (PMID: 24834059)
      J Vis. 2015;15(13):11. (PMID: 26382002)
      Perception. 2015 Feb;44(2):157-68. (PMID: 26561969)
      Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Dec 1;112(48):14990-5. (PMID: 26627250)
      Brain Sci. 2016 Mar 22;6(1):null. (PMID: 27011204)
      Sci Rep. 2017 Mar 10;7:43511. (PMID: 28281547)
      Autism Res. 2017 Jun;10(6):1096-1106. (PMID: 28301094)
      Autism. 2018 Oct 5;:1362361318782221. (PMID: 30288989)
      Kybernetik. 1972 Mar;10(3):139-44. (PMID: 5021011)
      J Autism Dev Disord. 1994 Oct;24(5):659-85. (PMID: 7814313)
      Perception. 1996;25(5):503-4. (PMID: 8865293)
      J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1996 Oct;37(7):873-7. (PMID: 8923230)
      Vision Res. 1998 Sep;38(18):2817-32. (PMID: 9775328)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20171216 Date Completed: 20180105 Latest Revision: 20190118
    • Publication Date:
      20240104
    • Accession Number:
      PMC5731733
    • Accession Number:
      10.1371/journal.pone.0189197
    • Accession Number:
      29244813