m8ta
use https for features.
text: sort by
tags: modified
type: chronology
[0] Shuler MG, Bear MF, Reward timing in the primary visual cortex.Science 311:5767, 1606-9 (2006 Mar 17)

{1458}
hide / / print
ref: -2017 tags: V1 V4 visual cortex granger causality date: 03-20-2019 06:00 gmt revision:0 [head]

PMID-28739915 Interactions between feedback and lateral connections in the primary visual cortex

  • Liang H1, Gong X1, Chen M2,3, Yan Y2,3, Li W4,3, Gilbert CD5.
  • Extracellular ephys on V1 and V4 neurons in macaque monkeys trained on a fixation and saccade task.
  • Contour task: monkeys had to select the patch of lines, chosen to stimulate the recorded receptive fields, which had a continuous contour in it (again chosen to elicit a response in the recorded V1 / V4 neurons).
    • Variable length of the contour: 1, 3, 5, 7 bars. First part of analysis: only 7-bar trials.
  • Granger causality (GC) in V1 horizontal connectivity decreased significantly in the 0-30Hz band after taking into account V4 activity. Hence, V4 explains some of the causal activity in V1.
    • This result holds both with contour-contour (e.g. cells both tuned to the contours in V1), contour-background, and background-background.
    • Yet there was a greater change in the contour-BG and BG-contour cells when V4 was taken into account (Granger causality is directional, like KL divergence).
      • This result passes the shuffle test, where tria identities were shuffled.
      • True also when LFP is measured.
      • That said .. even though GC is sensitive to temporal features, might be nice to control with a distant area.
      • See supplementary figures (of which there are a lot) for the controls.
  • Summarily: Feedback from V4 strengthens V1 lateral connections.
  • Then they looked at trials with a variable number of contour bars.
  • V4 seems to have a greater GC influence on background cells relative to contour cells.
  • Using conditional GC, lateral interactions in V1 contribute more to contour integration than V4.
  • Greater GC in correct trials than incorrect trials.

  • Note: differences in firing rate can affect estimation of GC. Hence, some advise using thinning of the spike trains to yield parity.
  • Note: refs for horizontal connections in V1 [7-10, 37]

{1452}
hide / / print
ref: -2012 tags: DiCarlo Visual object recognition inferior temporal cortex dorsal ventral stream V1 date: 03-13-2019 22:24 gmt revision:1 [0] [head]

PMID-22325196 How Does the Brain Solve Visual Object Recognition

  • James DiCarlo, Davide Zoccolan, Nicole C Rust.
  • Infero-temporal cortex is organized into behaviorally relevant categories, not necessarily retinotopically, as demonstrated with TMS studies in humans, and lesion studies in other primates.
    • Synaptic transmission takes 1-2ms; dendritic propagation ?, axonal propagation ~1ms (e.g. pyramidal antidromic activation latency 1.2-1.3ms), so each layer can use several synapses for computation.
  • Results from the ventral stream computation can be well described by a firing rate code binned at ~ 50ms. Such a code can reliably describe and predict behavior
    • Though: this does not rule out codes with finer temporal resolution.
    • Though anyway: it may be inferential issue, as behavior operates at this timescale.
  • IT neurons' responses are sparse, but still contain information about position and size.
    • They are not narrowly tuned detectors, not grandmother cells; they are selective and complex but not narrow.
    • Indeed, IT neurons with the highest shape selectivities are the least tolerate to changes in position, scale, contrast, and visual clutter. (Zoccolan et al 2007)
    • Position information avoids the need to re-bind attributes with perceptual categories -- no need for syncrhony binding.
  • Decoded IT population activity of ~100 neurons exceeds artificial vision systems (Pinto et al 2010).
  • As in {1448}, there is a ~ 30x expansion of the number of neurons (axons?) in V1 vs the optic tract; serves to allow controlled sparsity.
  • Dispute in the field over primarily hierarchical & feed-forward vs. highly structured feedback being essential for performance (and learning?) of the system.
    • One could hypothesize that feedback signals help lower levels perform inference with noisy inputs; or feedback from higher layers, which is prevalent and manifest (and must be important; all that membrane is not wasted..)
    • DiCarlo questions if the re-entrant intra-area and inter-area communication is necessary for building object representations.
      • This could be tested with optogenetic approaches; since the publication, it may have been..
      • Feedback-type active perception may be evinced in binocular rivalry, or in visual illusions;
      • Yet 150ms immediate object recognition probably does not require it.
  • Authors propose thinking about neurons/local circuits as having 'job descriptions', an metaphor that couples neuroscience to human organization: who is providing feedback to the workers? Who is providing feeback as to job function? (Hinton 1995).
  • Propose local subspace untangling; when this is tacked and tiled, this is sufficient for object perception.
    • Indeed, modern deep convolutional networks behave this way; yet they still can't match human performance (perhaps not sparse enough, not enough representational capability)
    • Cite Hinton & Salakhutdinov 2006.
  • The AND-OR or conv-pooling architecture was proposed by Hubbel and Weisel back in 1962! In their paper's formulatin, they call it a Normalized non-linear model, NLN.
  1. Nonlinearities tend to flatten object manifolds; even with random weights, NLN models tend to produce easier to decode object identities, based on strength of normalization. See also {714}.
  2. NLNs are tuned / become tuned to the statistics of real images. But they do not get into discrimination / perception thereof..
  3. NLNs learn temporally: inputs that occur temporally adjacent lead to similar responses.
    1. But: scaades? Humans saccade 100 million times per year!
      1. This could be seen as a continuity prior: the world is unlikely to change between saccades, so one can infer the identity and positions of objects on the retina, which say can be used to tune different retinotopic IT neurons..
    2. See Li & DiCarlo -- manipulation of image statistics changing visual responses.
  • Regarding (3) above, perhaps attention is a modifier / learning gate?

{1445}
hide / / print
ref: -2018 tags: cortex layer martinotti interneuron somatostatin S1 V1 morphology cell type morphological recovery patch seq date: 03-06-2019 02:51 gmt revision:3 [2] [1] [0] [head]

Neocortical layer 4 in adult mouse differs in major cell types and circuit organization between primary sensory areas

  • Using whole-cell recordings with morphological recovery, we identified one major excitatory and seven inhibitory types of neurons in L4 of adult mouse visual cortex (V1).
  • Nearly all excitatory neurons were pyramidal and almost all Somatostatin-positive (SOM+) neurons were Martinotti cells.
  • In contrast, in somatosensory cortex (S1), excitatory cells were mostly stellate and SOM+ cells were non-Martinotti.
  • These morphologically distinct SOM+ interneurons correspond to different transcriptomic cell types and are differentially integrated into the local circuit with only S1 cells receiving local excitatory input.
  • Our results challenge the classical view of a canonical microcircuit repeated through the neocortex.
  • Instead we propose that cell-type specific circuit motifs, such as the Martinotti/pyramidal pair, are optionally used across the cortex as building blocks to assemble cortical circuits.
  • Note preponderance of axons.
  • Classifications:
    • Pyr pyramidal cells
    • BC Basket cells
    • MC Martinotti cells
    • BPC bipolar cells
    • NFC neurogliaform cells
    • SC shrub cells
    • DBC double bouquet cells
    • HEC horizontally elongated cells.
  • Using Patch-seq

{1444}
hide / / print
ref: -2012 tags: parvalbumin interneurons V1 perceptual discrimination mice date: 03-06-2019 01:46 gmt revision:0 [head]

PMID-22878719 Activation of specific interneurons improves V1 feature selectivity and visual perception

  • Lee SH1, Kwan AC, Zhang S, Phoumthipphavong V, Flannery JG, Masmanidis SC, Taniguchi H, Huang ZJ, Zhang F, Boyden ES, Deisseroth K, Dan Y.
  • Optogenetic Activation of PV+ interneurons improves neuronal feature selectivity and improves perceptual discrimination (!!!)

{1402}
hide / / print
ref: -0 tags: recurrent cortical model adaptation gain V1 LTD date: 03-27-2018 17:48 gmt revision:1 [0] [head]

PMID-18336081 Adaptive integration in the visual cortex by depressing recurrent cortical circuits.

  • Mainly focused on the experimental observation that decreasing contrast increases latency to both behavioral and neural response (latter in the later visual areas..)
  • Idea is that synaptic depression in recurrent cortical connections mediates this 'adaptive integration' time-constant to maintain reliability.
  • Model also explains persistent activity after a flashed stimulus.
  • No plasticity or learning, though.
  • Rather elegant and well explained.

{630}
hide / / print
ref: Shuler-2006.03 tags: reward V1 visual cortex timing reinforcement surprising date: 01-03-2012 02:33 gmt revision:4 [3] [2] [1] [0] [head]

PMID-16543459[0] Reward Timing in the Primary Visual Cortex

  • the responses of a substantial fraction of neurons in the primary visual cortex evolve from those that relate solely to the physical attributes of the stimuli to those that accurately predict the timing of reward.. wow!
  • rats. they put goggles on the rats to deliver full-fields retinal illumination for 400ms (isn't this cheating? full field?)
  • recorded from deep layers of V1
  • sensory processing does not seem to be reliable, stable, and reproducible...
  • rewarded only half of the trials, to see if the plasticity was a result of reward delivery or association of stimuli and reward.
  • after 5-7 sessions of training, neurons began to respond to the poststimulus reward time.
  • this was actually independent of reward delivery - only dependent on the time.
  • reward-related activity was only driven by the dominant eye.
  • individual neurons predict reward time quite accurately. (wha?)
  • responses continued even if the animal was no longer doing the task.
  • is this an artifact? of something else? what's going on? the suggest that it could be caused by subthreshold activity due to recurrent connections amplified by dopamine.

____References____