Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Current models cannot account for V1’s specialisation for binocular natural image statistics

View ORCID ProfileSid Henriksen, Daniel A. Butts, Jenny C.A. Read, Bruce G. Cumming
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/497008
Sid Henriksen
1Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, UK
2Laboratory of Sensorimotor Research, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Sid Henriksen
Daniel A. Butts
3Department of Biology, University of Maryland College Park, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jenny C.A. Read
1Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bruce G. Cumming
2Laboratory of Sensorimotor Research, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

A long-standing observation about primary visual cortex (V1) is that the stimulus selectivity of neurons can be well explained with a cascade of linear computations followed by a nonlinear rectification stage. This framework remains highly influential in systems neuroscience and has also inspired recent efforts in artificial intelligence. The success of these models include describing the disparity-selectivity of binocular neurons in V1. Some aspects of real neuronal disparity responses are hard to explain with simple linear-nonlinear models, notably the attenuated response of real cells to “anticorrelated” stimuli which violate natural binocular image statistics. General linear-nonlinear models can account for this attenuation, but no one has yet tested whether they quantitatively match the response of real neurons. Here, we exhaustively test this framework using recently developed optimisation techniques. We show that many cells are very poorly characterised by even general linear-nonlinear models. Strikingly, the models can account for neuronal responses to unnatural anticorrelated stimuli as well as to most natural, correlated stimuli. However, the models fail to capture the particularly strong response to binocularly correlated stimuli at the preferred disparity of the cell. Thus, V1 neurons perform an amplification of responses to correlated stimuli which cannot be accounted for by a linear-nonlinear cascade. The implication is that even simple stimulus selectivity in V1 requires more complex computations than previously envisaged.

Significance statement A long-standing question in sensory systems neuroscience is whether the computations performed by neurons in primary visual cortex can be described by repeated elements of linear-nonlinear units (a linear filtering/pooling stage followed by a subsequent output nonlinearity, such as a squaring). This question goes back to the Nobel-prize winning work by Hubel & Wiesel who argued that orientation selectivity in V1 can qualitatively be explained in this way. In this paper, we show that V1 neurons have an amplification of their response to stimuli which are contrast matched in the two eyes, and that the recovered models cannot describe this property. We argue that this likely represents more sophisticated computations than can be compactly described by the linear-nonlinear cascade framework.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted December 16, 2018.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Current models cannot account for V1’s specialisation for binocular natural image statistics
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Current models cannot account for V1’s specialisation for binocular natural image statistics
Sid Henriksen, Daniel A. Butts, Jenny C.A. Read, Bruce G. Cumming
bioRxiv 497008; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/497008
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Current models cannot account for V1’s specialisation for binocular natural image statistics
Sid Henriksen, Daniel A. Butts, Jenny C.A. Read, Bruce G. Cumming
bioRxiv 497008; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/497008

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Neuroscience
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (4672)
  • Biochemistry (10338)
  • Bioengineering (7658)
  • Bioinformatics (26299)
  • Biophysics (13501)
  • Cancer Biology (10672)
  • Cell Biology (15412)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (8487)
  • Ecology (12805)
  • Epidemiology (2067)
  • Evolutionary Biology (16830)
  • Genetics (11382)
  • Genomics (15469)
  • Immunology (10601)
  • Microbiology (25166)
  • Molecular Biology (10205)
  • Neuroscience (54383)
  • Paleontology (399)
  • Pathology (1667)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2889)
  • Physiology (4334)
  • Plant Biology (9235)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1586)
  • Synthetic Biology (2554)
  • Systems Biology (6773)
  • Zoology (1461)