MIB is not solely determined by low-level sensory suppression or adaptation and is not caused by a shutdown of retinal input to the cortex, such as could arise for example from freezing of fixational eye movements. First, different patterns tend to disappear independently and in some cases, such as adjacent orthogonal patches, disappear in a rivalry-like alternation (Bonneh et al.,
2001). This argues strongly against global underlying mechanisms, including retinal stabilization. Second, moving or dynamic patterns can also disappear, producing the striking phenomenon of a pattern that disappears at one position and reappears on the other side of the screen after a few seconds (Bonneh et al.,
2001). Third, at least under certain conditions and unlike Troxler fading (Livingstone & Hubel,
1987), a brighter target pattern disappears more (Bonneh et al.,
2001), ruling out a “gain control” or adaptation mechanism that attenuates responses to low-contrast stimuli in a cluttered environment. Fourth, there is evidence for residual subconscious processing of invisible stimuli, including the capacity to produce orientation-selective adaptation (Montaser-Kouhsari, Moradi, Zandvakili, & Esteky,
2004), negative afterimages (Hofstoetter, Koch, & Kiper,
2004), and Gestalt grouping (Mitroff & Scholl,
2005). Fifth, target-specific fMRI responses in human V1, showing robust suppression during physical removal of the target, exhibit only weak suppression during its illusory disappearance in MIB, consistent with a central origin of MIB (Donner, Sagi, Bonneh, & Heeger,
2008). Further, areas in extrastriate dorsal and ventral visual cortices show competitive dynamics specifically during MIB (Donner et al.,
2008).