Back

Determinants of visual ambiguity resolution

Linde-Domingo, J.; Ortiz-Tudela, J.; Voeller, J.; Hebart, M. N.; Gonzalez-Garcia, C.

2026-03-05 neuroscience
10.1101/2025.05.28.656283 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Visual inputs during natural perception are highly ambiguous: objects are frequently occluded, lighting conditions vary, and object identification depends significantly on prior experiences. However, why do certain images remain unidentifiable while others can be recognized immediately, and what visual features drive subjective clarification? To address these critical questions, we developed a unique dataset of 1,854 ambiguous images and collected more than 100,000 ratings (from a total of 947 participants) evaluating their identifiability before and after seeing undistorted versions of the images. Relating the representations of a brain-inspired neural network model in response to our images with human ratings, we show that subjective identification depends largely on the extent to which higher-level visual features from the original images are preserved in their ambiguous counterparts. In line with these results, an image-level regression analysis showed that the subjective identification of ambiguous images was best explained by high-level visual dimensions. Notably, the predominance of higher-level features over lower-level ones softens after participants disambiguate the images, suggesting that the visual system flexibly shifts between top-down guessing to bottom-up matching after disambiguation. Moreover, we found that the process of ambiguity resolution was accompanied by a notable decrease in semantic distance and a greater consistency in object naming among participants. However, the relationship between information gained after disambiguation and subjective identification was non-linear, indicating that acquiring more information does not necessarily enhance subjective clarity. Instead, we observed a U-shaped relationship, suggesting that subjective identification improves when the acquired information either strongly matches or mismatches prior predictions. Collectively, these findings advance our understanding on how we resolve ambiguity and extract meaning from incomplete visual information.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 7%
18.2%
2
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 1%
17.1%
3
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 5%
10.2%
4
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
5
Journal of Vision
92 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.7%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 25%
4.7%
7
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 21%
4.2%
8
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 7%
3.5%
9
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.0%
10
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.0%
11
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
12
Cognition
44 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
13
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.7%
14
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.7%
15
Communications Psychology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.4%
16
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.2%
17
Neuron
282 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.2%
18
Neural Networks
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
19
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 29%
1.1%
20
Nature
575 papers in training set
Top 14%
1.1%
21
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.9%
22
Neuroscience of Consciousness
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
23
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 25%
0.9%
24
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 25%
0.7%
25
Nature Neuroscience
216 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
26
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
27
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.6%
28
Psychological Science
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%