Referee 1's review:

Review of "Multi-timescale perceptual history resolves visual ambiguity"

The manuscript reports a collection of nice experiments showing that the memory that stabilizes bistable perception across interruptions in stimulation is not only a memory of direct previous perception, but some kind of build up in percept choice. In other words briefly changing the percept does not seem to reset the memory completely.

In general I like the study and think that it was well done.

I have no major issues that require remedy, although fig 1b needs better explanation. It took awhile for me to fully understand what was actually being plotted. Eg. Does 'high' on the X axis mean 'long' as in a long time?

Also, its unclear to me if in fig. 1b percepts A and B are surely related, eg. Show an negative correlation ?

I don't thing the abstract communicates what the authors actually did. Perhaps, rather than using 'opposite' kind of terminology the authors could give an example using say red and green. I think this would make things much clearer.

I suggest the authors take out all the acronyms, because it makes reading for non experts much harder, there is no need to use IP and CP.

Typos:

Page 3.
" For instance, in case an ambiguous...." did the authors mean to write "in the case of...."

Page. 7. Last paragraph, second line, "refine" should be "refines".

**********
N.B. These are the comments made by the referee when reviewing an earlier version of this paper. Prior to publication the manuscript has been revised in light of these comments and to address other editorial requirements.