Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Jul 8.
Published in final edited form as: Curr Biol. 2008 Jun 26;18(13):982–986. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.05.048

The functional impact of mental imagery on conscious perception

Joel Pearson 1,2,†, Colin Clifford 1, Frank Tong 2
PMCID: PMC2519957  NIHMSID: NIHMS59253  PMID: 18583132

Summary

Mental imagery has been proposed to contribute to a variety of high-level cognitive functions, including memory encoding and retrieval, navigation and spatial planning, and even social communication and language comprehension [1–5]. However, it is debated whether mental imagery relies on the same sensory representations as perception [1, 6–10], and if so, what functional consequences such an overlap might have on perception itself. We report novel evidence that single instances of imagery can have a pronounced facilitatory influence on subsequent conscious perception. Either seeing or imagining a specific pattern could strongly bias which of two competing stimuli reach awareness during binocular rivalry. Effects of imagery and perception were location- and orientation-specific, accumulated in strength over time, and survived an intervening visual task lasting several seconds prior to presentation of the rivalry display. Interestingly, effects of imagery differed from those of feature-based attention. The results demonstrate that imagery, in the absence of any incoming visual signals, leads to the formation of a short-term sensory trace that can bias future perception, suggesting a means by which high-level processes that support imagination and memory retrieval may shape low-level sensory representations.

Keywords: visual imagery, visual attention, perceptual priming, short-term memory, binocular rivalry, bistable perception, consciousness

Results

We devised a novel paradigm to isolate the phenomenal contents of mental imagery by measuring its impact on subsequent perception. The experiments capitalize on the bistable phenomenon of binocular rivalry, in which conflicting visual patterns, presented one to each eye, lead to competitive interactions in visual cortex such that only one monocular pattern becomes exclusively dominant in perception [11, 12]. We hypothesized that the impact of visual imagery on conscious perception might be revealed under these bistable perceptual conditions; specifically, imagery might alter the balance of competitive visual interactions in favour of the imagined pattern.

The rivalry display consisted of a green vertical grating shown to the left eye and a red horizontal grating shown to the right eye. The relative strength of the two stimuli was adjusted to minimize any pre-existing eye bias an observer might have (see Supplemental Methods). In Experiment 1, the rivalry display was briefly shown once every 10.75 seconds, and observers reported which of the two patterns appeared dominant after each presentation (Fig. 1a). Under conditions of passive viewing, observers were more likely to perceive a given pattern if the same pattern appeared dominant on the preceding trial (Fig. 1b, gray bar). This persistence of rivalry dominance across successive presentations (i.e., perceptual stabilization) is believed to reflect the automatic formation of a sensory memory that can bias subsequent perception in a facilitatory manner [13, 14]. Here, the level of perceptual stabilization during passive viewing was ~80%, consistent with previous studies [13–16].

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Effects of mental imagery on subsequent perceptual dominance in rivalry. (A) Visual stimuli and timing of events. A rivalry display was presented every 10.75 s, and observers reported which of the two rival patterns appeared dominant. During the 10-s blank interval following each presentation, observers were instructed either to maintain fixation passively, or to imagine the pattern that was dominant or suppressed on the previous rivalry presentation. (B) Results showing perceptual stability across successive rivalry presentations (N=7). Observers tended to perceive the same pattern across successive presentations during passive viewing (perceptual stability ~80%, chance level 50%). Imagery led to significant changes in perceptual stability (F = 21.3, P < 0.0005). Whereas imagery of the previously dominant pattern led to somewhat higher levels of perceptual stability than passive viewing (t = 1.9; P = 0.10), imagery of the previous suppressed pattern led to significantly lower levels of perceptual stability (t = 4.5; P < 0.005). Error bars, ±1 s.e.m.

To investigate the effects of imagery, observers were instructed to imagine one of the two rivalry patterns during the blank intervening period between presentations, either the pattern that was dominant or suppressed on the preceding rivalry presentation. Imagery of the previously dominant pattern led to somewhat higher levels of perceptual stability relative to passive viewing (Fig. 1b, white bar), while imagery of the previously suppressed pattern led to much lower levels of perceptual stability (Fig. 1b, black bar). Thus, imagery biased subsequent perception in favour of the imagined pattern. These facilitatory effects were reliable in individual observers (Supplementary Fig. 1). A control experiment confirmed that naïve observers showed these imagery effects only for rivalry displays and not for catch-trial presentations of mock-rivalry displays (Supplementary Fig. 2). This suggests that the facilitatory effects of imagery are perceptual in nature and unlikely to reflect decisional bias.

In subsequent experiments, we investigated whether these effects of imagery can be mimicked by viewing a faint pattern (Exp 2), enhanced by longer periods of imagery (Exp 3), impaired by the presence of a bright background (Exp 4), and disrupted by changes in orientation or retinotopic location (Exp 5). For Experiments 2–4, observers reported which pattern appeared dominant on each rivalry presentation, after which they were shown or instructed to imagine the pattern that had just been suppressed so that its effect on the stability of subsequent rivalry could be determined. If perceptual stability fell significantly below the level found with passive viewing of a blank screen (~80%), this indicated bias in favour of the previously suppressed pattern. Experiment 5 used a different design; the viewed or imagined pattern was randomly selected on each trial and its impact on subsequent rivalry perception was measured. Perceptual facilitation was indicated if the seen or imagined pattern appeared dominant on the next rivalry presentation more often than 50% of the time.

Weak visual stimulation resembles the effects of imagery

In Experiment 2, we investigated the consequences of passively viewing a single physical pattern between intermittent rivalry presentations. Shortly after each rivalry presentation, observers were shown the pattern they reported as suppressed for a 4-second period (Fig. 2a), and this pattern’s influence on subsequent rivalry perception was measured. We hypothesized that imagery might be mimicking the effects of weak visual stimulation, and therefore parametrically varied the intensity of this intervening stimulus. Perceptual stability was severely disrupted when the intervening pattern was shown at fairly low luminance levels, corresponding to about 40% of the intensity of the rivalry stimuli (Fig. 2b). Further decreases in stimulus luminance led to weaker disruptive effects that eventually reached the level found for passively viewing a blank screen (i.e., 0% luminance). Similar results were obtained for manipulations of stimulus contrast (Fig. 2c, d), indicating that prior viewing of either a low-luminance or low-contrast pattern can facilitate subsequent perception of that pattern during rivalry.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Effects of weak visual stimuli on subsequent dominance in rivalry. (A) Rivalry displays were presented every 10.75 s. An intervening stimulus was presented for a 4-s period between rivalry presentations, consisting of the oriented pattern that was suppressed on the previous rivalry presentation. Luminance of the intervening stimulus was varied across blocks of trials. (B) Perceptual stability across successive rivalry presentations, plotted as a function of the luminance of the intervening stimulus (N=5). The intervening stimulus was most effective at disrupting perceptual stability at modest luminance levels, corresponding to about 40% of the mean luminance of the rivalry patterns. Note that lower levels of perceptual stability indicate that rivalry dominance is biased in favour of the intervening pattern. (C) Same experimental design as in a, but using luminance-defined Gabor gratings presented on a mean luminance background. (D) Perceptual stability across successive rivalry presentations, plotted as a function of contrast (N=5). Contrast values are reported relative to the full contrast of the rivalry patterns, which was 70% Michelson contrast. Errors bars, ±1 s.e.m.

The facilitatory effects of weak visual stimulation cannot be explained in terms of immediate sensory interactions [17], given the 3-second gap between presentations of the intervening pattern and the subsequent rivalry display. Moreover, these facilitatory effects cannot be explained in terms of neural adaptation or fatigue, as prior adaptation to a strong visual pattern is known to weaken both neural responses [18] and subsequent dominance in binocular rivalry [17, 19, 20]. Instead, it seems that passive viewing of a weak physical pattern leads to the formation of a specific perceptual trace, which can facilitate perception of that same pattern at a later time during rivalry. After strong visual stimulation however, the benefits of this perceptual trace may be masked by counteracting effects of neural adaptation. In the following experiments, we directly compared imagery with passive viewing of faint visual patterns (shown at 40% of the intensity of the rivalry pattern).

Facilitatory effects of imagery and weak stimulation accumulate over time

To what extent does imagery resemble weak visual stimulation, and might both lead to the formation of a short-term perceptual trace? We reasoned that if these short-term facilitation effects resulted from the formation of a physiological trace, then the strength of that trace should increase with prolonged durations of imagery or direct stimulation. Also, if the short-term trace is truly sensory and not dependent on active maintenance [21], then once formed, this trace should persist for brief periods even when the observer must attend to another visual task.

Experiment 3 had the following design. After each rivalry presentation, observers viewed or imagined the previously suppressed pattern for a variable duration of 1–15 seconds (Fig. 3a). Next they performed a challenging discrimination task, identifying letters presented rapidly at fixation over a 5-second period (performance accuracy ~70% correct), until the following rivalry display appeared. The letter task was designed to prevent active maintenance of the imagined pattern, which allowed us to determine whether the underlying trace could be passively maintained over this delay period.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Effects of task duration for perception, imagery and attention. (A) Experimental design. After each rivalry presentation, observers either viewed, imagined or attended to the previously suppressed rivalry pattern for a variable duration (1–15s), followed by a challenging letter discrimination task. (B) Perceptual stability across successive rivalry presentations, plotted as a function of task duration (N=5). Disruptive effects of perception and imagery significantly increased over time, as indicated by repeated-measures ANOVA (F = 9.8; P < 0.001), with no reliable difference found between these two conditions (main effect, F = 3.4; P = 0.138; task × duration interaction, F = 1.4, P = 0.30). By contrast, feature-based attention strongly disrupted perceptual stability after just 1 second of viewing the plaid stimulus, and did not change in strength as a function of task duration (F = 0.03; P = 0.99). Effects of feature-based attention over time differed from those of imagery and perception, as indicated by a significant interaction effect (F = 2.77; P < 0.05). In the blank passive condition (gray circles), each rivalry presentation was followed by passive viewing of a blank screen for 1 or 15 seconds and then the letter discrimination task. Perceptual stability was unaffected by varying the duration of passive viewing of a blank screen. Plots show linear fits to the data. Errors bars, ±1 s.e.m.

Longer periods of viewing the physical pattern led to lower levels of perceptual stability (Fig. 3b, perception condition), indicating enhanced facilitation and a build-up in the strength of the underlying perceptual trace. (Control experiments revealed no change in perceptual stability when observers passively viewed a blank screen for variable durations.) Longer periods of imagery also led to stronger facilitatory effects (Fig. 3b, dotted line), and remarkably, these effects were comparable in strength to those obtained by viewing the physical pattern. The results imply that prolonged mental imagery leads to the gradual accumulation of a perceptual trace, much like the effect of weak perception. After this trace is formed, it can persist for short periods while the observer is actively engaged in another visual task.

Differential effects of imagery and feature-based attention

In Experiment 3, we also tested for facilitatory effects of feature-based attention, which has been found to modulate rivalry perception to some extent [22–25]. By feature-based attention, we refer to the ability to attend selectively to one of multiple overlapping features occupying a common region of space. Between rivalry presentations, the physical sum of both rivalry patterns was presented to both eyes as a stable composite plaid (see Fig. 3a, bottom), and observers were instructed to attend to one of the patterns. An initial experiment revealed facilitatory effects of attention (Supplementary Fig. 3) similar to the imagery effects found in Experiment 1.

For Experiment 3, the plaid stimulus was presented for 1–15 seconds, followed by the letter discrimination task and the subsequent rivalry display. Facilitatory effects of feature-based attention emerged in full strength after just 1 second of performing this task (Fig 3b), unlike the gradual build-up found for imagery and weak visual stimulation. This difference in the time needed for attention to bias rivalry indicates that the effects of imagery can be distinguished from those of feature-based attention.

We also explored whether manipulations of background luminance might reveal differences between the top-down effects of imagery and attention. In early pilot studies, some observers reported difficulty with forming a vivid mental image while viewing a lit background, so we switched to a dark background instead. In Experiment 4, however, we purposely manipulated the luminance of the background while subjects performed the imagery or feature-based attention task. Background luminance was set to 0, 25, 50 or 100% of the mean luminance of the rivalry patterns on separate blocks of trials.

Feature-based attention could strongly disrupt perceptual stability at all luminance levels, with no reliable difference between conditions (Fig. 4). By contrast, imagery became less effective at disrupting rivalry at higher luminance levels, such that perceptual stability in the 100% luminance condition was no different from control conditions of passive viewing (t = 0.34; P = 0.76). Given that subjects attempted to perform the same imagery task across variations in background luminance, such interference by a uniformly lit background implies that these bias effects are attributable to imagery per se, rather than other aspects of the task instructions.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Influence of background luminance on disruptive effects of imagery (open circles) and feature-based attention (open triangles). Observers either imagined or attended to the pattern that was suppressed on the previous rivalry presentation (N=4), while the luminance of the background varied across different blocks of trials. Bias effects of imagery were disrupted at higher luminance levels (F = 5.2; P < 0.05), which significantly differed from bias effects of feature-based attention (ANOVA interaction effect, F = 5.55; P < 0.05; effect of condition F = 16.8; P < 0.05). In comparison, perceptual stability of rivalry remained high when observers passively viewed a blank screen (filled circles) or a plaid stimulus (filled triangles) between rivalry presentations, independent of background luminance level. Thus, variations in luminance level alone do not affect the stability of rivalry perception. Error bars=±s.e.m.

Orientation specificity of imagery

Finally, we investigated the visual specificity of imagery by probing the effects of orientation, a property that is strongly represented in early visual areas [26, 27]. We hypothesized that if mental imagery can activate orientation-selective neurons and lead to the formation of an orientation-selective trace, then subsequent perception should be facilitated only when the imagined orientation closely matches the physical orientation of one of the rivalling patterns.

Experiment 5 introduced a randomized-trial design. On each trial, the grating to be seen or imagined was randomly determined and its influence on subsequent rivalry dominance was measured (Fig. 5a). For the imagery task, a randomized cue indicated whether to imagine the green vertical grating or red horizontal grating for 4 seconds. In the perception condition, an actual grating was presented in place of the imagery task. Next, orthogonal rivalry patterns were presented, both rotated by −45, −22.5, 0, +22.5 or +45 degrees on any given trial. If rivalry perception was biased in favour of the previously seen/imagined pattern on more than 50% of the trials, this indicated a perceptual facilitation effect.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Orientation-specific bias of rivalry perception. (A) Experimental design and stimuli. In the imagery condition, observers were randomly cued to imagine either a vertical green or a horizontal red grating, followed by two orthogonal rivaling patterns presented 7 s later. On each trial, the rivalry display was rotated by -45, -22.5, 0, +22.5 or +45 deg. Both patterns were always rotated the same amount, thereby maintaining orthogonality. In the perception condition, either a vertical green grating or a horizontal red grating was shown for 4 s, followed by a 3-s delay, then the rivalry display was shown at one of the 5 possible angles. (B) Rivalry dominance was most strongly biased in favour of the previously seen or imagined pattern for rivalry displays sharing the same orientation (N=5, data sorted for analysis by matching the color or imagery and rivalry domiance). Analysis of variance revealed reliable effects of orientation bias for imagery (F = 4.4; P < 0.05) and perception (F = 6.2; P < 0.005), with no statistical difference between these conditions (P = 0.66). Error bars, ±1 s.e.m.

Analysis of individual trials revealed orientation-dependent effects of mental imagery (Fig. 5b), with the strongest perceptual facilitation found for matching orientations (average bias 74%, chance level 50%) and progressively weaker effects found for differing orientations. Perception of an intervening physical pattern led to the same orientation-dependent pattern of results.

A further experiment confirmed that facilitatory effects of imagery were specific to retinotopic location. Observers showed strong facilitation when imagery was performed at the same location as the subsequent rivalry patterns, but no facilitation when locations differed (Supplementary Fig. 4). (Similar location-specific effects were observed for feature-based attention, indicating local rather than global facilitation of the attended feature [28].) Taken together, the results suggest that imagery leads to the formation of a precise sensory trace that is specific to both orientation and retinotopic location.

Discussion

This study demonstrates that single episodes of mental imagery can have powerful functional impact on the outcome of conscious perception. Both imagery and perception led to the formation of a visually specific short-term trace that could bias subsequent perception of ambiguous stimuli in a precise manner. These findings are important because they suggest a potential mechanism by which top-down expectations or recollections of previous experiences might shape perception itself.

Our findings provide strong support for perceptually based theories of imagery [1]. Evidence is mixed regarding whether mental images can provide a veridical representation of stimuli after their removal [29–31]. Studies in favour of the perceptual nature of imagery have found that the active maintenance of mental images can sometimes interfere with perception [32–34] or facilitate perception in a stimulus-specific manner [35, 36]. Because imagery and perception tasks were performed concurrently in previous studies, a potential concern is that the imagery task might alter how subjects attend to the test stimulus. If so, then perceptual effects observed during mental imagery might reflect the by-product of interactions between attention and incoming sensory signals [6, 35–38]. Our study addressed these concerns by separating imagery and perception tasks in time, thereby allowing subjects to perform imagery in the absence of any incoming sensory signals. In addition, we found novel evidence suggesting that the effects of feature-based attention can be distinguished from those of imagery.

This study also reveals how different forms of top-down influence can alter the balance of perceptual competition during rivalry [11, 12]. Binocular rivalry is strongly influenced by the low-level stimulus manipulations [39] but can also be biased by feature-based attention [22–25]. Here, we found novel evidence that top-down effects of mental imagery can bias perceptual competition in rivalry, suggesting that endogenously generated activity may also have a role in resolving perceptual ambiguity.

What type of memory might support these perceptual facilitation effects? Longer periods of imagery or perception led to stronger facilitation effects, which could survive for several seconds while subjects performed another visual task. Thus, the duration of this perceptual trace extends well beyond that of iconic memory, which lasts only a few hundred milliseconds [40]. The graded and automatic nature of this memory also differs from traditional descriptions of working memory, which involves all-or-none encoding of discrete items and their active maintenance to prevent memory decay [21]. Instead, this short-term perceptual facilitation resembles the effects of perceptual priming [41], which can be quite specific to the features and location of a previously seen stimulus [17, 42–44]. It is striking to consider that “perceptual priming” might be elicited without perception, by simply imagining a previous perceptual experience.

Supplementary Material

01

Supplementary methods and figures accompany the paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Randolph Blake and Axel Kohler for helpful discussions. This research was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NEI R01 EY017082 and NEI R01 EY14202) to FT, Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant to CC, and an NHMRC (Aust.) CJ Martin Fellowship 457146 to JP.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

  • 1.Kosslyn SM, Ganis G, Thompson WL. Neural foundations of imagery. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001;2:635–642. doi: 10.1038/35090055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sack AT, Camprodon JA, Pascual-Leone A, Goebel R. The dynamics of interhemispheric compensatory processes in mental imagery. Science. 2005;308:702–704. doi: 10.1126/science.1107784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Owen AM, Coleman MR, Boly M, Davis MH, Laureys S, Pickard JD. Detecting awareness in the vegetative state. Science. 2006;313:1402. doi: 10.1126/science.1130197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Just MA, Newman SD, Keller TA, McEleney A, Carpenter PA. Imagery in sentence comprehension: an fMRI study. Neuroimage. 2004;21:112–124. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.08.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Szpunar KK, Watson JM, McDermott KB. Neural substrates of envisioning the future. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104:642–647. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0610082104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Pylyshyn ZW. Mental imagery: in search of a theory. Behav Brain Sci. 2002;25:157–182. doi: 10.1017/s0140525x02000043. discussion 182–237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Pylyshyn Z. Return of the mental image: are there really pictures in the brain? Trends Cogn Sci. 2003;7:113–118. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(03)00003-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.O'Craven KM, Kanwisher N. Mental imagery of faces and places activates corresponding stiimulus- specific brain regions. J Cogn Neurosci. 2000;12:1013–1023. doi: 10.1162/08989290051137549. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ishai A, Ungerleider LG, Haxby JV. Distributed neural systems for the generation of visual images. Neuron. 2000;28:979–990. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(00)00168-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Amedi A, Malach R, Pascual-Leone A. Negative BOLD differentiates visual imagery and perception. Neuron. 2005;48:859–872. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2005.10.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Blake R, Logothetis NK. Visual competition. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002;3:13–21. doi: 10.1038/nrn701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Tong F, Meng M, Blake R. Neural bases of binocular rivalry. Trends Cogn Sci. 2006;10:502–511. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.09.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Leopold DA, Wilke M, Maier A, Logothetis NK. Stable perception of visually ambiguous patterns. Nat Neurosci. 2002;5:605–609. doi: 10.1038/nn0602-851. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Pearson J, Brascamp J. Sensory memory for ambiguous vision. Trends Cogn Sci. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.05.006. In press. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Pearson J, Clifford CG. Determinants of visual awareness following interruptions during rivalry. J Vis. 2004;4:196–202. doi: 10.1167/4.3.6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Chen X, He S. Local factors determine the stabilization of monocular ambiguous and binocular rivalry stimuli. Curr Biol. 2004;14:1013–1017. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2004.05.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Brascamp JW, Knapen THJ, Kanai R, Van Ee R, Van den Berg AV. Flash suppression and flash facilitation in binocular rivalry. J Vis. 2007;7:1–12. doi: 10.1167/7.12.12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ibbotson MR. Physiological mechanisms of adaptation in the visual system. In: Rhodes CCaG., editor. Fitting the mind to the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. pp. 17–45. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wolfe JM. Reversing ocular dominance and suppression in a single flash. Vision Res. 1984;24:471–478. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(84)90044-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Pearson J, Clifford CW. Mechanisms selectively engaged in rivalry: normal vision habituates, rivalrous vision primes. Vision Res. 2005;45:707–714. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2004.09.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Baddeley A. Working memory: looking back and looking forward. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003;4:829–839. doi: 10.1038/nrn1201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Meng M, Tong F. Can attention selectively bias bistable perception? Differences between binocular rivalry and ambiguous figures. J Vis. 2004;4:539–551. doi: 10.1167/4.7.2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mitchell JF, Stoner GR, Reynolds JH. Object-based attention determines dominance in binocular rivalry. Nature. 2004;429:410–413. doi: 10.1038/nature02584. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Chong SC, Tadin D, Blake R. Endogenous attention prolongs dominance durations in binocular rivalry. J Vis. 2005;5:1004–1012. doi: 10.1167/5.11.6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chong SC, Blake R. Exogenous attention and endogenous attention influence initial dominance in binocular rivalry. Vision Res. 2006;46:1794–1803. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2005.10.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hubel DH, Wiesel TN. Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cortex. Journal of Physiology. 1968;195:215–243. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1968.sp008455. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kamitani Y, Tong F. Decoding the visual and subjective contents of the human brain. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8:679–685. doi: 10.1038/nn1444. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Boynton GM. Attention and visual perception. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2005;15:465–469. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2005.06.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kosslyn SM, Ball TM, Reiser BJ. Visual images preserve metric spatial information: evidence from studies of image scanning. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1978;4:47–60. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.4.1.47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Perky CW. An experimental study of imagination. The American Journal of Psychology. 1910;21:422–452. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Finke RA, Pinker S, Farah MJ. Reinterpreting visual patterns in mental imagery. Cognitive Science. 1989;13:51–78. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Segal SJ, Fusella V. Effects of imaging of signal-to-noise ratio, with varying signal conditions. Br J Psychol. 1969;60:459–464. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1969.tb01219.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Segal SJ, Fusella V. Influence of imaged pictures and sounds on detection of visual and auditory signals. J Exp Psychol. 1970;83:458–464. doi: 10.1037/h0028840. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Craver-Lemley C, Reeves A. How visual imagery interferes with vision. Psychol Rev. 1992;99:633–649. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.99.4.633. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Farah MJ. Psychophysical evidence for a shared representational medium for mental images and percepts. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1985;114:91–103. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.114.1.91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ishai A, Sagi D. Common mechanisms of visual imagery and perception. Science. 1995;268:1772–1774. doi: 10.1126/science.7792605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Farah MJ. Mechanisms of imagery-perception interaction. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1989;15:203–211. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.15.2.203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Carrasco M, Ling S, Read S. Attention alters appearance. Nat Neurosci. 2004;7:308–313. doi: 10.1038/nn1194. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Blake R. A neural theory of binocular rivalry. Psychological Review. 1989;96:145–167. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.96.1.145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Averbach E, Sperling G. Short-term memory in vision. Bell System Tech J. 1961;40:309–328. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Schacter DL, Dobbins IG, Schnyer DM. Specificity of priming: a cognitive neuroscience perspective. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004;5:853–862. doi: 10.1038/nrn1534. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Maljkovic V, Nakayama K. Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features. Mem Cognit. 1994;22:657–672. doi: 10.3758/bf03209251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Maljkovic V, Nakayama K. Priming of pop-out: II. The role of position. Percept Psychophys. 1996;58:977–991. doi: 10.3758/bf03206826. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Tanaka Y, Sagi D. A perceptual memory for low-contrast visual signals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95:12729–12733. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.21.12729. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

01

Supplementary methods and figures accompany the paper.

NIHMS59253-supplement-01.pdf (219.9KB, pdf)

RESOURCES