4.3 Article

Selectivity and sparseness in the responses of striate complex cells

期刊

VISION RESEARCH
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 57-73

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2004.07.021

关键词

vision; macaque monkey; modeling; information theory; sparse coding

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [Z01MH002036] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Probability distributions of macaque complex cell responses to a large set of images were determined. Measures of selectivity were based on the overall shape of the response probability distribution, as quantified by either kurtosis or entropy. We call this non-parametric selectivity, in contrast to parametric selectivity, which measures tuning curve bandwidths. To examine how receptive field properties affected non-parametric selectivity, two models of complex cells were created. One was a standard Gabor energy model, and the other a slight variant constructed from a Gabor function and its Hilbert transform. Functionally, these models differed primarily in the size of their DC responses. The Hilbert model produced higher selectivities than the Gabor model, with the two models bracketing the data from above and below. Thus we see that tiny changes in the receptive field profiles can lead to major changes in selectivity. While selectivity looks at the response distribution of a single neuron across a set of stimuli, sparseness looks at the response distribution of a population of neurons to a single stimulus. In the model, we found that on average the sparseness of a population was equal to the selectivity of cells comprising that population, a property we call ergodicity. We raise the possibility that high sparseness is the result of distortions in the shape of response distributions caused by non-linear, information-losing transforms, unrelated to information theoretic issues of efficient coding. (c) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据