nips nips2012 nips2012-23 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining

23 nips-2012-A lattice filter model of the visual pathway

Source: pdf

Author: Karol Gregor, Dmitri B. Chklovskii

Abstract: Early stages of visual processing are thought to decorrelate, or whiten, the incoming temporally varying signals. Motivated by the cascade structure of the visual pathway (retina → lateral geniculate nucelus (LGN) → primary visual cortex, V1) we propose to model its function using lattice ﬁlters - signal processing devices for stage-wise decorrelation of temporal signals. Lattice ﬁlter models predict neuronal responses consistent with physiological recordings in cats and primates. In particular, they predict temporal receptive ﬁelds of two different types resembling so-called lagged and non-lagged cells in the LGN. Moreover, connection weights in the lattice ﬁlter can be learned using Hebbian rules in a stage-wise sequential manner reminiscent of the neuro-developmental sequence in mammals. In addition, lattice ﬁlters can model visual processing in insects. Therefore, lattice ﬁlter is a useful abstraction that captures temporal aspects of visual processing. Our sensory organs face an ongoing barrage of stimuli from the world and must transmit as much information about them as possible to the rest of the brain [1]. This is a formidable task because, in sensory modalities such as vision, the dynamic range of natural stimuli (more than three orders of magnitude) greatly exceeds the dynamic range of relay neurons (less than two orders of magnitude) [2]. The reason why high ﬁdelity transmission is possible at all is that the continuity of objects in the physical world leads to correlations in natural stimuli, which imply redundancy. In turn, such redundancy can be eliminated by compression performed by the front end of the visual system leading to the reduction of the dynamic range [3, 4]. A compression strategy appropriate for redundant natural stimuli is called predictive coding [5, 6, 7]. In predictive coding, a prediction of the incoming signal value is computed from past values delayed in the circuit. This prediction is subtracted from the actual signal value and only the prediction error is transmitted. In the absence of transmission noise such compression is lossless as the original signal could be decoded on the receiving end by inverting the encoder. If predictions are accurate, the dynamic range of the error is much smaller than that of the natural stimuli. Therefore, minimizing dynamic range using predictive coding reduces to optimizing prediction. Experimental support for viewing the front end of the visual system as a predictive encoder comes from the measurements of receptive ﬁelds [6, 7]. In particular, predictive coding suggests that, for natural stimuli, the temporal receptive ﬁelds should be biphasic and the spatial receptive ﬁelds center-surround. These predictions are born out by experimental measurements in retinal ganglion cells, [8], lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) neurons [9] and ﬂy second order visual neurons called large monopolar cells (LMCs) [2]. In addition, the experimentally measured receptive ﬁelds vary with signal-to-noise ratio as would be expected from optimal prediction theory [6]. Furthermore, experimentally observed whitening of the transmitted signal [10] is consistent with removing correlated components from the incoming signals [11]. As natural stimuli contain correlations on time scales greater than hundred milliseconds, experimentally measured receptive ﬁelds of LGN neurons are equally long [12]. Decorrelation over such long time scales requires equally long delays. How can such extended receptive ﬁeld be produced by 1 biological neurons and synapses whose time constants are typically less than hundred milliseconds [13]? The ﬁeld of signal processing offers a solution to this problem in the form of a device called a lattice ﬁlter, which decorrelates signals in stages, sequentially adding longer and longer delays [14, 15, 16, 17]. Motivated by the cascade structure of visual systems [18], we propose to model decorrelation in them by lattice ﬁlters. Naturally, visual systems are more complex than lattice ﬁlters and perform many other operations. However, we show that the lattice ﬁlter model explains several existing observations in vertebrate and invertebrate visual systems and makes testable predictions. Therefore, we believe that lattice ﬁlters provide a convenient abstraction for modeling temporal aspects of visual processing. This paper is organized as follows. First, we brieﬂy summarize relevant results from linear prediction theory. Second, we explain the operation of the lattice ﬁlter in discrete and continuous time. Third, we compare lattice ﬁlter predictions with physiological measurements. 1 Linear prediction theory Despite the non-linear nature of neurons and synapses, the operation of some neural circuits in vertebrates [19] and invertebrates [20] can be described by a linear systems theory. The advantage of linear systems is that optimal circuit parameters may be obtained analytically and the results are often intuitively clear. Perhaps not surprisingly, the ﬁeld of signal processing relies heavily on the linear prediction theory, offering a convenient framework [15, 16, 17]. Below, we summarize the results from linear prediction that will be used to explain the operation of the lattice ﬁlter. Consider a scalar sequence y = {yt } where time t = 1, . . . , n. Suppose that yt at each time point depends on side information provided by vector zt . Our goal is to generate a series of linear predictions, yt from the vector zt , yt = w · zt . We deﬁne a prediction error as: ˆ ˆ et = yt − yt = yt − w · zt ˆ (1) and look for values of w that minimize mean squared error: e2 = 1 nt e2 = t t 1 nt (yt − w · zt )2 . (2) t The weight vector, w is optimal for prediction of sequence y from sequence z if and only if the prediction error sequence e = y − w · z is orthogonal to each component of vector z: ez = 0. (3) When the whole series y is given in advance, i.e. in the ofﬂine setting, these so-called normal equations can be solved for w, for example, by Gaussian elimination [21]. However, in signal processing and neuroscience applications, another setting called online is more relevant: At every time step t, prediction yt must be made using only current values of zt and w. Furthermore, after a ˆ prediction is made, w is updated based on the prediction yt and observed yt , zt . ˆ In the online setting, an algorithm called stochastic gradient descent is often used, where, at each time step, w is updated in the direction of negative gradient of e2 : t w →w−η w (yt − w · zt ) 2 . (4) This leads to the following weight update, known as least mean square (LMS) [15], for predicting sequence y from sequence z: w → w + ηet zt , (5) where η is the learning rate. The value of η represents the relative inﬂuence of more recent observations compared to more distant ones. The larger the learning rate the faster the system adapts to recent observations and less past it remembers. In this paper, we are interested in predicting a current value xt of sequence x from its past values xt−1 , . . . , xt−k restricted by the prediction order k > 0: xt = wk · (xt−1 , . . . , xt−k )T . ˆ 2 (6) This problem is a special case of the online linear prediction framework above, where yt = xt , zt = (xt−1 , . . . , xt−k )T . Then the gradient update is given by: w → wk + ηet (xt−1 , . . . , xt−k )T . (7) While the LMS algorithm can ﬁnd the weights that optimize linear prediction (6), the ﬁlter wk has a long temporal extent making it difﬁcult to implement with neurons and synapses. 2 Lattice ﬁlters One way to generate long receptive ﬁelds in circuits of biological neurons is to use a cascade architecture, known as the lattice ﬁlter, which calculates optimal linear predictions for temporal sequences and transmits prediction errors [14, 15, 16, 17]. In this section, we explain the operation of a discrete-time lattice ﬁlter, then adapt it to continuous-time operation. 2.1 Discrete-time implementation The ﬁrst stage of the lattice ﬁlter, Figure 1, calculates the error of the ﬁrst order optimal prediction (i.e. only using the preceding element of the sequence), the second stage uses the output of the ﬁrst stage and calculates the error of the second order optimal prediction (i.e. using only two previous values) etc. To make such stage-wise error computations possible the lattice ﬁlter calculates at every stage not only the error of optimal prediction of xt from past values xt−1 , . . . , xt−k , called forward error, ftk = xt − wk · (xt−1 , . . . , xt−k )T , (8) but, perhaps non-intuitively, also the error of optimal prediction of a past value xt−k from the more recent values xt−k+1 , . . . , xt , called backward error: bk = xt−k − w k · (xt−k+1 , . . . , xt )T , t k where w and w k (9) are the weights of the optimal prediction. For example, the ﬁrst stage of the ﬁlter calculates the forward error ft1 of optimal prediction of xt from xt−1 : ft1 = xt − u1 xt−1 as well as the backward error b1 of optimal prediction of xt−1 from t xt : b1 = xt−1 − v 1 xt , Figure 1. Here, we assume that coefﬁcients u1 and v 1 that give optimal linear t prediction are known and return to learning them below. Each following stage of the lattice ﬁlter performs a stereotypic operation on its inputs, Figure 1. The k-th stage (k > 1) receives forward, ftk−1 , and backward, bk−1 , errors from the previous stage, t delays backward error by one time step and computes a forward error: ftk = ftk−1 − uk bk−1 t−1 (10) of the optimal linear prediction of ftk−1 from bk−1 . In addition, each stage computes a backward t−1 error k−1 k bt = bt−1 − v k ftk−1 (11) of the optimal linear prediction of bk−1 from ftk−1 . t−1 As can be seen in Figure 1, the lattice ﬁlter contains forward prediction error (top) and backward prediction error (bottom) branches, which interact at every stage via cross-links. Operation of the lattice ﬁlter can be characterized by the linear ﬁlters acting on the input, x, to compute forward or backward errors of consecutive order, so called prediction-error ﬁlters (blue bars in Figure 1). Because of delays in the backward error branch the temporal extent of the ﬁlters grows from stage to stage. In the next section, we will argue that prediction-error ﬁlters correspond to the measurements of temporal receptive ﬁelds in neurons. For detailed comparison with physiological measurements we will use the result that, for bi-phasic prediction-error ﬁlters, such as the ones in Figure 1, the ﬁrst bar of the forward prediction-error ﬁlter has larger weight, by absolute value, than the combined weights of the remaining coefﬁcients of the corresponding ﬁlter. Similarly, in backward predictionerror ﬁlters, the last bar has greater weight than the rest of them combined. This fact arises from the observation that forward prediction-error ﬁlters are minimum phase, while backward predictionerror ﬁlters are maximum phase [16, 17]. 3 Figure 1: Discrete-time lattice ﬁlter performs stage-wise computation of forward and backward prediction errors. In the ﬁrst stage, the optimal prediction of xt from xt−1 is computed by delaying the input by one time step and multiplying it by u1 . The upper summation unit subtracts the predicted xt from the actual value and outputs prediction error ft1 . Similarly, the optimal prediction of xt−1 from xt is computed by multiplying the input by v 1 . The lower summation unit subtracts the optimal prediction from the actual value and outputs backward error b1 . In each following stage t k, the optimal prediction of ftk−1 from bk−1 is computed by delaying bk−1 by one time step and t t multiplying it by uk . The upper summation unit subtracts the prediction from the actual ftk−1 and outputs prediction error ftk . Similarly, the optimal prediction of bk−1 from ftk−1 is computed by t−1 multiplying it by uk . The lower summation unit subtracts the optimal prediction from the actual value and outputs backward error bk . Black connections have unitary weights and red connections t have learnable negative weights. One can view forward and backward error calculations as applications of so-called prediction-error ﬁlters (blue) to the input sequence. Note that the temporal extent of the ﬁlters gets longer from stage to stage. Next, we derive a learning rule for ﬁnding optimal coefﬁcients u and v in the online setting. The uk is used for predicting ftk−1 from bk−1 to obtain error ftk . By substituting yt = ftk−1 , zt = bk−1 and t−1 t−1 et = ftk into (5) the update of uk becomes uk → uk + ηftk bk−1 . t−1 (12) Similarly, v k is updated by v k → v k + ηbk ftk−1 . (13) t Interestingly, the updates of the weights are given by the product of the activities of outgoing and incoming nodes of the corresponding cross-links. Such updates are known as Hebbian learning rules thought to be used by biological neurons [22, 23]. Finally, we give a simple proof that, in the ofﬂine setting when the entire sequence x is known, f k and bk , given by equations (10, 11), are indeed errors of optimal k-th order linear prediction. Let D be one step time delay operator (Dx)t = xt−1 . The induction statement at k is that f k and bk are k-th order forward and backward errors of optimal linear prediction which is equivalent to f k and bk k k being of the form f k = x−w1 Dx−. . .−wk Dk x and bk = Dk x−w1k Dk−1 x−. . .−wkk x and, from k i normal equations (3), satisfying f D x = 0 and Dbk Di x = bk Di−1 x = 0 for i = 1, . . . , k. That this is true for k = 1 directly follows from the deﬁnition of f 1 and b1 . Now we assume that this is true for k − 1 ≥ 1 and show it is true for k. It is easy to see from the forms of f k−1 and bk−1 k k and from f k = f k−1 − uk Dbk−1 that f k has the correct form f k = x − w1 Dx − . . . − wk Dk x. k i k−1 k k−1 Regarding orthogonality for i = 1, . . . , k − 1 we have f D x = (f − u Db )Di x = f k−1 Di x − uk (Dbk−1 )Di x = 0 using the induction assumptions of orhogonality at k − 1. For the remaining i = k we note that f k is the error of the optimal linear prediction of f k−1 from Dbk−1 k−1 and therefore 0 = f k Dbk−1 = f k (Dk x − w1k−1 Dk−1 x − . . . + wk−1 Dx) = f k Dk x as desired. The bk case can be proven similarly. 2.2 Continuous-time implementation The last hurdle remaining for modeling neuronal circuits which operate in continuous time with a lattice ﬁlter is its discrete-time operation. To obtain a continuous-time implementation of the lattice 4 ﬁlter we cannot simply take the time step size to zero as prediction-error ﬁlters would become inﬁnitesimally short. Here, we adapt the discrete-time lattice ﬁlter to continous-time operation in two steps. First, we introduce a discrete-time Laguerre lattice ﬁlter [24, 17] which uses Laguerre polynomials rather than the shift operator to generate its basis functions, Figure 2. The input signal passes through a leaky integrator whose leakage constant α deﬁnes a time-scale distinct from the time step (14). A delay, D, at every stage is replaced by an all-pass ﬁlter, L, (15) with the same constant α, which preserves the magnitude of every Fourier component of the input but shifts its phase in a frequency dependent manner. Such all-pass ﬁlter reduces to a single time-step delay when α = 0. The optimality of a general discrete-time Laguerre lattice ﬁlter can be proven similarly to that for the discrete-time ﬁlter, simply by replacing operator D with L in the proof of section 2.1. Figure 2: Continuous-time lattice ﬁlter using Laguerre polynomials. Compared to the discretetime version, it contains a leaky integrator, L0 ,(16) and replaces delays with all-pass ﬁlters, L, (17). Second, we obtain a continuous-time formulation of the lattice ﬁlter by replacing t − 1 → t − δt, deﬁning the inverse time scale γ = (1 − α)/δt and taking the limit δt → 0 while keeping γ ﬁxed. As a result L0 and L are given by: Discrete time L0 (x)t L(x)t Continuous time = αL0 (x)t−1 + xt (14) = α(L(x)t−1 − xt ) + xt−1 (15) dL0 (x)/dt = −γL0 (x) + x L(x) = x − 2γL0 (x) (16) (17) Representative impulse responses of the continuous Laguerre ﬁlter are shown in Figure 2. Note that, similarly to the discrete-time case, the area under the ﬁrst (peak) phase is greater than the area under the second (rebound) phase in the forward branch and the opposite is true in the backward branch. Moreover, the temporal extent of the rebound is greater than that of the peak not just in the forward branch like in the basic discrete-time implementation but also in the backward branch. As will be seen in the next section, these predictions are conﬁrmed by physiological recordings. 3 Experimental evidence for the lattice ﬁlter in visual pathways In this section we demonstrate that physiological measurements from visual pathways in vertebrates and invertebrates are consistent with the predictions of the lattice ﬁlter model. For the purpose of modeling visual pathways, we identify summation units of the lattice ﬁlter with neurons and propose that neural activity represents forward and backward errors. In the ﬂy visual pathway neuronal activity is represented by continuously varying graded potentials. In the vertebrate visual system, all neurons starting with ganglion cells are spiking and we identify their ﬁring rate with the activity in the lattice ﬁlter. 3.1 Mammalian visual pathway In mammals, visual processing is performed in stages. In the retina, photoreceptors synapse onto bipolar cells, which in turn synapse onto retinal ganglion cells (RGCs). RGCs send axons to the LGN, where they synapse onto LGN relay neurons projecting to the primary visual cortex, V1. In addition to this feedforward pathway, at each stage there are local circuits involving (usually inhibitory) inter-neurons such as horizontal and amacrine cells in the retina. Neurons of each class 5 come in many types, which differ in their connectivity, morphology and physiological response. The bewildering complexity of these circuits has posed a major challenge to visual neuroscience. Alonso et al. • Connections between LGN and Cortex J. Neurosci., June 1, 2001, 21(11):4002–4015 4009 Temporal Filter 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 RGC LGN 0 100 Time (ms) 200 Figure 7. Distribution of geniculate cells and simple cells with respect to the timing of their responses. The distribution of three parameters derived from impulse responses of geniculate and cortical neurons is shown. A, Peak time. B, Zero-crossing time. C, Rebound index. Peak time is the time with the strongest response in the ﬁrst phase of the impulse response. Zero-crossing time is the time between the ﬁrst and second phases. Rebound index is the area of the impulse response after the zero crossing divided by the area before the zero crossing. Only impulse responses with good signal to noise were included (Ͼ5 SD above baseline; n ϭ 169). Figure 3: Electrophysiologically measured temporal receptive ﬁelds get progressively longer along the cat visual pathway. Left: A cat LGN cell (red) has a longer receptive ﬁeld than a corresponding RGC cell (blue) (adapted from [12] which also reports population data). Right (A,B): Extent of the temporal receptive ﬁelds of simple cells in cat V1 is greater than that of corresponding LGN cells as quantiﬁed by the peak (A) and zero-crossing (B) times. Right (C): In the temporal receptive ﬁelds of cat LGN and V1 cells the peak can be stronger or weaker than the rebound (adapted from [25]). simple cells and geniculate cells differed for all temporal parameters measured, there was considerable overlap between the distributions (Fig. 7). This overlap raises the following question: does connectivity depend on how well geniculate and cortical responses are matched with respect to time? For instance, do simple cells with fast subregions (early times to peak and early zero crossings) receive input mostly from geniculate cells with fast centers? Figure 8 illustrates the visual responses from a geniculate cell and a simple cell that were monosynaptically connected. A strong positive peak was observed in the correlogram (shown with a 10 msec time window to emphasize its short latency and fast rise time). In this case, an ON central subregion was well overlapped with an ON geniculate center (precisely at the peak of the subregion). Moreover, the timings of the visual responses from the overlapped subregion and the geniculate center were very similar (same onset, ϳ0 –25 msec; same peak, ϳ25–50 msec). It is worth noting that the two central subregions of the simple cell were faster and stronger than the two lateral subregions. The responses of the central subregions matched the timing of the geniculate center. In contrast, the timing of the lateral subregions resembled more closely the timing of the geniculate surround (both peaked at 25–50 msec). Unlike the example shown in Figure 8, a considerable number of geniculocortical pairs produced responses with different timing. For example, Figure 9 illustrates a case in which a geniculate center fully overlapped a strong simple-cell subregion of the same sign, but with slower timing (LGN onset, ϳ0 –25 msec; peak, ϳ25–50 msec; simple-cell onset, ϳ25–50 msec; peak, ϳ50 –75 msec). The cross-correlogram between this pair of neurons was ﬂat, which indicates the absence of a monosynaptic connection (Fig. 9, top right). To examine the role of timing in geniculocortical connectivity, we measured the response time course from all cell pairs that met two criteria. First, the geniculate center overlapped a simple-cell subregion of the same sign (n ϭ 104). Second, the geniculate center overlapped the cortical subregion in a near-optimal position (relative overlap Ͼ 50%, n ϭ 47; see Materials and Methods; Fig. 5A). All these cell pairs had a high probability of being monosynaptically connected because of the precise match in receptive-ﬁeld position and sign (31 of 47 were connected). The distributions of peak time, zero-crossing time, and rebound index from these cell pairs were very similar to the distributions from the entire sample (Fig. 7; see also Fig. 10 legend). The selected cell pairs included both presumed directional (predicted DI Ͼ 0.3, see Materials and Methods; 12/20 connected) and nondirectional (19/27 connected) simple cells. Most geniculate cells had small receptive ﬁelds (less than two simple-cell subregion widths; see Receptive-ﬁeld sign), although ﬁve cells with larger receptive ﬁelds were also included (three connected). From the 47 cell pairs used in this analysis, those with similar response time courses had a higher probability of being connected (Fig. 10). In particular, cell pairs that had both similar peak time and zero-crossing time were all connected (n ϭ 12; Fig. 10 A). Directionally selective simple cells were included in all timing groups. For example, in Figure 10 A there were four, ﬁve, two, and one directionally selective cells in the time groups Ͻ20, 40, 60, and Ͼ60 msec, respectively. Similar results were obtained if we restricted our sample to geniculate centers overlapped with the dominant subregion of the simple cell (n ϭ 31). Interestingly, the efﬁcacy and contributions of the connections seemed to depend little on the relative timing of the visual responses (Fig. 10, right). Although our sample of them was quite small, lagged cells are of considerable interest and therefore deserve comment. We recorded from 13 potentially lagged LGN cells whose centers were superimposed with a simple-cell subregion (eight with rebound indices between 1.2 and 1.5; ﬁve with rebound indices Ͼ1.9). Only seven of these pairs could be used for timing comparisons (in one pair the baseline of the correlogram had insufﬁcient spikes; in three pairs the geniculate receptive ﬁelds were Here, we point out several experimental observations related to temporal processing in the visual system consistent with the lattice ﬁlter model. First, measurements of temporal receptive ﬁelds demonstrate that they get progressively longer at each consecutive stage: i) LGN neurons have longer receptive ﬁelds than corresponding pre-synaptic ganglion cells [12], Figure 3left; ii) simple cells in V1 have longer receptive ﬁelds than corresponding pre-synaptic LGN neurons [25], Figure 3rightA,B. These observation are consistent with the progressively greater temporal extent of the prediction-error ﬁlters (blue plots in Figure 2). Second, the weight of the peak (integrated area under the curve) may be either greater or less than that of the rebound both in LGN relay cells [26] and simple cells of V1 [25], Figure 3right(C). Neurons with peak weight exceeding that of rebound are often referred to as non-lagged while the others are known as lagged found both in cat [27, 28, 29] and monkey [30]. The reason for this becomes clear from the response to a step stimulus, Figure 4(top). By comparing experimentally measured receptive ﬁelds with those of the continuous lattice ﬁlter, Figure 4, we identify non-lagged neurons with the forward branch and lagged neurons with the backward branch. Another way to characterize step-stimulus response is whether the sign of the transient is the same (non-lagged) or different (lagged) relative to sustained response. Third, measurements of cross-correlation between RGCs and LGN cell spikes in lagged and nonlagged neurons reveals a difference of the transfer function indicative of the difference in underlying circuitry [30]. This is consistent with backward pathway circuit of the Laguerre lattice ﬁlter, Figure 2, being more complex then that of the forward path (which results in different transfer function). ” (or replacing ”more complex” with ”different”) Third, measurements of cross-correlation between RGCs and LGN cell spikes in lagged and nonlagged neurons reveals a difference of the transfer function indicative of the difference in underlying circuitry [31]. This is consistent with the backward branch circuit of the Laguerre lattice ﬁlter, Figure 2, being different then that of the forward branch (which results in different transfer function). In particular, a combination of different glutamate receptors such as AMPA and NMDA, as well as GABA receptors are thought to be responsible for observed responses in lagged cells [32]. However, further investigation of the corresponding circuitry, perhaps using connectomics technology, is desirable. Fourth, the cross-link weights of the lattice ﬁlter can be learned using Hebbian rules, (12,13) which are biologically plausible [22, 23]. Interestingly, if these weights are learned sequentially, starting from the ﬁrst stage, they do not need to be re-learned when additional stages are added or learned. This property maps naturally on the fact that in the course of mammalian development the visual pathway matures in a stage-wise fashion - starting with the retina, then LGN, then V1 - and implying that the more peripheral structures do not need to adapt to the maturation of the downstream ones. 6 Figure 4: Comparison of electrophysiologically measured responses of cat LGN cells with the continuous-time lattice ﬁlter model. Top: Experimentally measured temporal receptive ﬁelds and step-stimulus responses of LGN cells (adapted from [26]). Bottom: Typical examples of responses in the continuous-time lattice ﬁlter model. Lattice ﬁlter coefﬁcients were u1 = v 1 = 0.4, u2 = v 2 = 0.2 and 1/γ = 50ms to model the non-lagged cell and u1 = v 1 = u2 = v 2 = 0.2 and 1/γ = 60ms to model the lagged cell. To model photoreceptor contribution to the responses, an additional leaky integrator L0 was added to the circuit of Figure 2. While Hebbian rules are biologically plausible, one may get an impression from Figure 2 that they must apply to inhibitory cross-links. We point out that this circuit is meant to represent only the computation performed rather than the speciﬁc implementation in terms of neurons. As the same linear computation can be performed by circuits with a different arrangement of the same components, there are multiple implementations of the lattice ﬁlter. For example, activity of non-lagged OFF cells may be seen as representing minus forward error. Then the cross-links between the non-lagged OFF pathway and the lagged ON pathway would be excitatory. In general, classiﬁcation of cells into lagged and non-lagged seems independent of their ON/OFF and X/Y classiﬁcation [31, 28, 29], but see[33]. 3.2 Insect visual pathway In insects, two cell types, L1 and L2, both post-synaptic to photoreceptors play an important role in visual processing. Physiological responses of L1 and L2 indicate that they decorrelate visual signals by subtracting their predictable parts. In fact, receptive ﬁelds of these neurons were used as the ﬁrst examples of predictive coding in neuroscience [6]. Yet, as the numbers of synapses from photoreceptors to L1 and L2 are the same [34] and their physiological properties are similar, it has been a mystery why insects, have not just one but a pair of such seemingly redundant neurons per facet. Previously, it was suggested that L1 and L2 provide inputs to the two pathways that map onto ON and OFF pathways in the vertebrate retina [35, 36]. Here, we put forward a hypothesis that the role of L1 and L2 in visual processing is similar to that of the two branches of the lattice ﬁlter. We do not incorporate the ON/OFF distinction in the effectively linear lattice ﬁlter model but anticipate that such combined description will materialize in the future. As was argued in Section 2, in forward prediction-error ﬁlters, the peak has greater weight than the rebound, while in backward prediction-error ﬁlters the opposite is true. Such difference implies that in response to a step-stimulus the signs of sustained responses compared to initial transients are different between the branches. Indeed, Ca2+ imaging shows that responses of L1 and L2 to step-stimulus are different as predicted by the lattice ﬁlter model [35], Figure 5b. Interestingly, the activity of L1 seems to represent minus forward error and L2 - plus backward error, suggesting that the lattice ﬁlter cross-links are excitatory. To summarize, the predictions of the lattice ﬁlter model seem to be consistent with the physiological measurements in the ﬂy visual system and may help understand its operation. 7 Stimulus 1 0.5 0 0 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 5 10 time 15 20 − Forward Error 1 0 −1 0 Backward Error 1 0 −1 0 Figure 5: Response of the lattice ﬁlter and fruit ﬂy LMCs to a step-stimulus. Left: Responses of the ﬁrst order discrete-time lattice ﬁlter to a step stimulus. Right: Responses of ﬂy L1 and L2 cells to a moving step stimulus (adapted from [35]). Predicted and the experimentally measured responses have qualitatively the same shape: a transient followed by sustained response, which has the same sign for the forward error and L1 and the opposite sign for the backward error and L2. 4 Discussion Motivated by the cascade structure of the visual pathway, we propose to model its operation with the lattice ﬁlter. We demonstrate that the predictions of the continuous-time lattice ﬁlter model are consistent with the course of neural development and the physiological measurement in the LGN, V1 of cat and monkey, as well as ﬂy LMC neurons. Therefore, lattice ﬁlters may offer a useful abstraction for understanding aspects of temporal processing in visual systems of vertebrates and invertebrates. Previously, [11] proposed that lagged and non-lagged cells could be a result of rectiﬁcation by spiking neurons. Although we agree with [11] that LGN performs temporal decorrelation, our explanation does not rely on non-linear processing but rather on the cascade architecture and, hence, is fundamentally different. Our model generates the following predictions that are not obvious in [11]: i) Not only are LGN receptive ﬁelds longer than RGC but also V1 receptive ﬁelds are longer than LGN; ii) Even a linear model can generate a difference in the peak/rebound ratio; iii) The circuit from RGC to LGN should be different for lagged and non-lagged cells consistent with [31]; iv) The lattice ﬁlter circuit can self-organize using Hebbian rules, which gives a mechanistic explanation of receptive ﬁelds beyond the normative framework of [11]. In light of the redundancy reduction arguments given in the introduction, we note that, if the only goal of the system were to compress incoming signals using a given number of lattice ﬁlter stages, then after the compression is peformed only one kind of prediction errors, forward or backward needs to be transmitted. Therefore, having two channels, in the absence of noise, may seem redundant. However, transmitting both forward and backward errors gives one the ﬂexibility to continue decorrelation further by adding stages performing relatively simple operations. We are grateful to D.A. Butts, E. Callaway, M. Carandini, D.A. Clark, J.A. Hirsch, T. Hu, S.B. Laughlin, D.N. Mastronarde, R.C. Reid, H. Rouault, A. Saul, L. Scheffer, F.T. Sommer, X. Wang for helpful discussions. References [1] F. Rieke, D. Warland, R.R. van Steveninck, and W. Bialek. Spikes: exploring the neural code. MIT press, 1999. [2] S.B. Laughlin. Matching coding, circuits, cells, and molecules to signals: general principles of retinal design in the ﬂy’s eye. Progress in retinal and eye research, 13(1):165–196, 1994. [3] F. Attneave. Some informational aspects of visual perception. Psychological review, 61(3):183, 1954. [4] H. Barlow. Redundancy reduction revisited. Network: Comp in Neural Systems, 12(3):241–253, 2001. [5] R.M. Gray. Linear Predictive Coding and the Internet Protocol. Now Publishers, 2010. [6] MV Srinivasan, SB Laughlin, and A. Dubs. Predictive coding: a fresh view of inhibition in the retina. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences, 216(1205):427–459, 1982. [7] T. Hosoya, S.A. Baccus, and M. Meister. Dynamic predictive coding by the retina. Nature, 436:71, 2005. 8 [8] HK Hartline, H.G. Wagner, and EF MacNichol Jr. The peripheral origin of nervous activity in the visual system. Studies on excitation and inhibition in the retina: a collection of papers from the laboratories of H. Keffer Hartline, page 99, 1974. [9] N.A. Lesica, J. Jin, C. Weng, C.I. Yeh, D.A. Butts, G.B. Stanley, and J.M. Alonso. Adaptation to stimulus contrast and correlations during natural visual stimulation. Neuron, 55(3):479–491, 2007. [10] Y. Dan, J.J. Atick, and R.C. Reid. Efﬁcient coding of natural scenes in the lateral geniculate nucleus: experimental test of a computational theory. The Journal of Neuroscience, 16(10):3351–3362, 1996. [11] D.W. Dong and J.J. Atick. Statistics of natural time-varying images. Network: Computation in Neural Systems, 6(3):345–358, 1995. [12] X. Wang, J.A. Hirsch, and F.T. Sommer. Recoding of sensory information across the retinothalamic synapse. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30(41):13567–13577, 2010. [13] C. Koch. Biophysics of computation: information processing in single neurons. Oxford Univ Press, 2005. [14] F. Itakura and S. Saito. On the optimum quantization of feature parameters in the parcor speech synthesizer. In Conference Record, 1972 International Conference on Speech Communication and Processing, Boston, MA, pages 434–437, 1972. [15] B. Widrow and S.D. Stearns. Adaptive signal processing. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1985. [16] S. Haykin. Adaptive ﬁlter theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood-Cliffs, NJ, 2003. [17] A.H. Sayed. Fundamentals of adaptive ﬁltering. Wiley-IEEE Press, 2003. [18] D.J. Felleman and D.C. Van Essen. Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex. Cerebral cortex, 1(1):1–47, 1991. [19] X. Wang, F.T. Sommer, and J.A. Hirsch. Inhibitory circuits for visual processing in thalamus. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 2011. [20] SB Laughlin, J. Howard, and B. Blakeslee. Synaptic limitations to contrast coding in the retina of the blowﬂy calliphora. Proceedings of the Royal society of London. Series B. Biological sciences, 231(1265):437–467, 1987. [21] D.C. Lay. Linear Algebra and Its Applications. Addison-Wesley/Longman, New York/London, 2000. [22] D.O. Hebb. The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002. [23] O. Paulsen and T.J. Sejnowski. Natural patterns of activity and long-term synaptic plasticity. Current opinion in neurobiology, 10(2):172–180, 2000. [24] Z. Fejzo and H. Lev-Ari. Adaptive laguerre-lattice ﬁlters. Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on, 45(12):3006–3016, 1997. [25] J.M. Alonso, W.M. Usrey, and R.C. Reid. Rules of connectivity between geniculate cells and simple cells in cat primary visual cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 21(11):4002–4015, 2001. [26] D. Cai, G.C. Deangelis, and R.D. Freeman. Spatiotemporal receptive ﬁeld organization in the lateral geniculate nucleus of cats and kittens. Journal of Neurophysiology, 78(2):1045–1061, 1997. [27] D.N. Mastronarde. Two classes of single-input x-cells in cat lateral geniculate nucleus. i. receptive-ﬁeld properties and classiﬁcation of cells. Journal of Neurophysiology, 57(2):357–380, 1987. [28] J. Wolfe and L.A. Palmer. Temporal diversity in the lateral geniculate nucleus of cat. Visual neuroscience, 15(04):653–675, 1998. [29] AB Saul and AL Humphrey. Spatial and temporal response properties of lagged and nonlagged cells in cat lateral geniculate nucleus. Journal of Neurophysiology, 64(1):206–224, 1990. [30] A.B. Saul. Lagged cells in alert monkey lateral geniculate nucleus. Visual neurosci, 25:647–659, 2008. [31] D.N. Mastronarde. Two classes of single-input x-cells in cat lateral geniculate nucleus. ii. retinal inputs and the generation of receptive-ﬁeld properties. Journal of Neurophysiology, 57(2):381–413, 1987. [32] P. Heggelund and E. Hartveit. Neurotransmitter receptors mediating excitatory input to cells in the cat lateral geniculate nucleus. i. lagged cells. Journal of neurophysiology, 63(6):1347–1360, 1990. [33] J. Jin, Y. Wang, R. Lashgari, H.A. Swadlow, and J.M. Alonso. Faster thalamocortical processing for dark than light visual targets. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(48):17471–17479, 2011. [34] M. Rivera-Alba, S.N. Vitaladevuni, Y. Mischenko, Z. Lu, S. Takemura, L. Scheffer, I.A. Meinertzhagen, D.B. Chklovskii, and G.G. de Polavieja. Wiring economy and volume exclusion determine neuronal placement in the drosophila brain. Current Biology, 21(23):2000–5, 2011. [35] D.A. Clark, L. Bursztyn, M.A. Horowitz, M.J. Schnitzer, and T.R. Clandinin. Deﬁning the computational structure of the motion detector in drosophila. Neuron, 70(6):1165–1177, 2011. [36] M. Joesch, B. Schnell, S.V. Raghu, D.F. Reiff, and A. Borst. On and off pathways in drosophila motion vision. Nature, 468(7321):300–304, 2010. 9

Reference: text

Summary: the most important sentenses genereted by tfidf model

sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore

1 A lattice ﬁlter model of the visual pathway Karol Gregor Dmitri B. [sent-1, score-0.684]

2 Motivated by the cascade structure of the visual pathway (retina → lateral geniculate nucelus (LGN) → primary visual cortex, V1) we propose to model its function using lattice ﬁlters - signal processing devices for stage-wise decorrelation of temporal signals. [sent-5, score-1.406]

3 In particular, they predict temporal receptive ﬁelds of two different types resembling so-called lagged and non-lagged cells in the LGN. [sent-7, score-0.639]

4 Moreover, connection weights in the lattice ﬁlter can be learned using Hebbian rules in a stage-wise sequential manner reminiscent of the neuro-developmental sequence in mammals. [sent-8, score-0.482]

5 In addition, lattice ﬁlters can model visual processing in insects. [sent-9, score-0.59]

6 Therefore, lattice ﬁlter is a useful abstraction that captures temporal aspects of visual processing. [sent-10, score-0.681]

7 In particular, predictive coding suggests that, for natural stimuli, the temporal receptive ﬁelds should be biphasic and the spatial receptive ﬁelds center-surround. [sent-22, score-0.474]

8 These predictions are born out by experimental measurements in retinal ganglion cells, [8], lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) neurons [9] and ﬂy second order visual neurons called large monopolar cells (LMCs) [2]. [sent-23, score-1.114]

9 The ﬁeld of signal processing offers a solution to this problem in the form of a device called a lattice ﬁlter, which decorrelates signals in stages, sequentially adding longer and longer delays [14, 15, 16, 17]. [sent-29, score-0.581]

10 Motivated by the cascade structure of visual systems [18], we propose to model decorrelation in them by lattice ﬁlters. [sent-30, score-0.679]

11 Naturally, visual systems are more complex than lattice ﬁlters and perform many other operations. [sent-31, score-0.59]

12 However, we show that the lattice ﬁlter model explains several existing observations in vertebrate and invertebrate visual systems and makes testable predictions. [sent-32, score-0.622]

13 Therefore, we believe that lattice ﬁlters provide a convenient abstraction for modeling temporal aspects of visual processing. [sent-33, score-0.681]

14 Second, we explain the operation of the lattice ﬁlter in discrete and continuous time. [sent-36, score-0.492]

15 Third, we compare lattice ﬁlter predictions with physiological measurements. [sent-37, score-0.564]

16 Below, we summarize the results from linear prediction that will be used to explain the operation of the lattice ﬁlter. [sent-41, score-0.575]

17 We deﬁne a prediction error as: ˆ ˆ et = yt − yt = yt − w · zt ˆ (1) and look for values of w that minimize mean squared error: e2 = 1 nt e2 = t t 1 nt (yt − w · zt )2 . [sent-48, score-0.435]

18 2 Lattice ﬁlters One way to generate long receptive ﬁelds in circuits of biological neurons is to use a cascade architecture, known as the lattice ﬁlter, which calculates optimal linear predictions for temporal sequences and transmits prediction errors [14, 15, 16, 17]. [sent-75, score-1.058]

19 In this section, we explain the operation of a discrete-time lattice ﬁlter, then adapt it to continuous-time operation. [sent-76, score-0.492]

20 1 Discrete-time implementation The ﬁrst stage of the lattice ﬁlter, Figure 1, calculates the error of the ﬁrst order optimal prediction (i. [sent-78, score-0.686]

21 To make such stage-wise error computations possible the lattice ﬁlter calculates at every stage not only the error of optimal prediction of xt from past values xt−1 , . [sent-83, score-0.838]

22 , xt−k , called forward error, ftk = xt − wk · (xt−1 , . [sent-86, score-0.503]

23 , xt , called backward error: bk = xt−k − w k · (xt−k+1 , . [sent-92, score-0.408]

24 For example, the ﬁrst stage of the ﬁlter calculates the forward error ft1 of optimal prediction of xt from xt−1 : ft1 = xt − u1 xt−1 as well as the backward error b1 of optimal prediction of xt−1 from t xt : b1 = xt−1 − v 1 xt , Figure 1. [sent-96, score-1.111]

25 Each following stage of the lattice ﬁlter performs a stereotypic operation on its inputs, Figure 1. [sent-98, score-0.567]

26 The k-th stage (k > 1) receives forward, ftk−1 , and backward, bk−1 , errors from the previous stage, t delays backward error by one time step and computes a forward error: ftk = ftk−1 − uk bk−1 t−1 (10) of the optimal linear prediction of ftk−1 from bk−1 . [sent-99, score-0.78]

27 t−1 As can be seen in Figure 1, the lattice ﬁlter contains forward prediction error (top) and backward prediction error (bottom) branches, which interact at every stage via cross-links. [sent-101, score-1.055]

28 Operation of the lattice ﬁlter can be characterized by the linear ﬁlters acting on the input, x, to compute forward or backward errors of consecutive order, so called prediction-error ﬁlters (blue bars in Figure 1). [sent-102, score-0.746]

29 Because of delays in the backward error branch the temporal extent of the ﬁlters grows from stage to stage. [sent-103, score-0.485]

30 3 Figure 1: Discrete-time lattice ﬁlter performs stage-wise computation of forward and backward prediction errors. [sent-108, score-0.829]

31 The upper summation unit subtracts the prediction from the actual ftk−1 and outputs prediction error ftk . [sent-114, score-0.499]

32 The lower summation unit subtracts the optimal prediction from the actual value and outputs backward error bk . [sent-116, score-0.482]

33 By substituting yt = ftk−1 , zt = bk−1 and t−1 t−1 et = ftk into (5) the update of uk becomes uk → uk + ηftk bk−1 . [sent-122, score-0.47]

34 The induction statement at k is that f k and bk are k-th order forward and backward errors of optimal linear prediction which is equivalent to f k and bk k k being of the form f k = x−w1 Dx−. [sent-128, score-0.604]

35 2 Continuous-time implementation The last hurdle remaining for modeling neuronal circuits which operate in continuous time with a lattice ﬁlter is its discrete-time operation. [sent-154, score-0.511]

36 To obtain a continuous-time implementation of the lattice 4 ﬁlter we cannot simply take the time step size to zero as prediction-error ﬁlters would become inﬁnitesimally short. [sent-155, score-0.455]

37 Here, we adapt the discrete-time lattice ﬁlter to continous-time operation in two steps. [sent-156, score-0.492]

38 First, we introduce a discrete-time Laguerre lattice ﬁlter [24, 17] which uses Laguerre polynomials rather than the shift operator to generate its basis functions, Figure 2. [sent-157, score-0.455]

39 The optimality of a general discrete-time Laguerre lattice ﬁlter can be proven similarly to that for the discrete-time ﬁlter, simply by replacing operator D with L in the proof of section 2. [sent-161, score-0.455]

40 Figure 2: Continuous-time lattice ﬁlter using Laguerre polynomials. [sent-163, score-0.455]

41 Second, we obtain a continuous-time formulation of the lattice ﬁlter by replacing t − 1 → t − δt, deﬁning the inverse time scale γ = (1 − α)/δt and taking the limit δt → 0 while keeping γ ﬁxed. [sent-165, score-0.455]

42 Moreover, the temporal extent of the rebound is greater than that of the peak not just in the forward branch like in the basic discrete-time implementation but also in the backward branch. [sent-168, score-0.706]

43 3 Experimental evidence for the lattice ﬁlter in visual pathways In this section we demonstrate that physiological measurements from visual pathways in vertebrates and invertebrates are consistent with the predictions of the lattice ﬁlter model. [sent-170, score-1.49]

44 For the purpose of modeling visual pathways, we identify summation units of the lattice ﬁlter with neurons and propose that neural activity represents forward and backward errors. [sent-171, score-1.055]

45 In the vertebrate visual system, all neurons starting with ganglion cells are spiking and we identify their ﬁring rate with the activity in the lattice ﬁlter. [sent-173, score-0.996]

46 Distribution of geniculate cells and simple cells with respect to the timing of their responses. [sent-187, score-0.741]

47 The distribution of three parameters derived from impulse responses of geniculate and cortical neurons is shown. [sent-188, score-0.555]

48 Figure 3: Electrophysiologically measured temporal receptive ﬁelds get progressively longer along the cat visual pathway. [sent-196, score-0.484]

49 Left: A cat LGN cell (red) has a longer receptive ﬁeld than a corresponding RGC cell (blue) (adapted from [12] which also reports population data). [sent-197, score-0.416]

50 Right (A,B): Extent of the temporal receptive ﬁelds of simple cells in cat V1 is greater than that of corresponding LGN cells as quantiﬁed by the peak (A) and zero-crossing (B) times. [sent-198, score-0.831]

51 Right (C): In the temporal receptive ﬁelds of cat LGN and V1 cells the peak can be stronger or weaker than the rebound (adapted from [25]). [sent-199, score-0.762]

52 simple cells and geniculate cells differed for all temporal parameters measured, there was considerable overlap between the distributions (Fig. [sent-200, score-0.774]

53 For instance, do simple cells with fast subregions (early times to peak and early zero crossings) receive input mostly from geniculate cells with fast centers? [sent-203, score-0.842]

54 Figure 8 illustrates the visual responses from a geniculate cell and a simple cell that were monosynaptically connected. [sent-204, score-0.713]

55 In this case, an ON central subregion was well overlapped with an ON geniculate center (precisely at the peak of the subregion). [sent-206, score-0.561]

56 Moreover, the timings of the visual responses from the overlapped subregion and the geniculate center were very similar (same onset, ϳ0 –25 msec; same peak, ϳ25–50 msec). [sent-207, score-0.682]

57 The responses of the central subregions matched the timing of the geniculate center. [sent-209, score-0.492]

58 In contrast, the timing of the lateral subregions resembled more closely the timing of the geniculate surround (both peaked at 25–50 msec). [sent-210, score-0.532]

59 For example, Figure 9 illustrates a case in which a geniculate center fully overlapped a strong simple-cell subregion of the same sign, but with slower timing (LGN onset, ϳ0 –25 msec; peak, ϳ25–50 msec; simple-cell onset, ϳ25–50 msec; peak, ϳ50 –75 msec). [sent-212, score-0.5]

60 First, the geniculate center overlapped a simple-cell subregion of the same sign (n ϭ 104). [sent-216, score-0.469]

61 Second, the geniculate center overlapped the cortical subregion in a near-optimal position (relative overlap Ͼ 50%, n ϭ 47; see Materials and Methods; Fig. [sent-217, score-0.442]

62 Most geniculate cells had small receptive ﬁelds (less than two simple-cell subregion widths; see Receptive-ﬁeld sign), although ﬁve cells with larger receptive ﬁelds were also included (three connected). [sent-225, score-1.085]

63 Similar results were obtained if we restricted our sample to geniculate centers overlapped with the dominant subregion of the simple cell (n ϭ 31). [sent-232, score-0.521]

64 Although our sample of them was quite small, lagged cells are of considerable interest and therefore deserve comment. [sent-235, score-0.395]

65 We recorded from 13 potentially lagged LGN cells whose centers were superimposed with a simple-cell subregion (eight with rebound indices between 1. [sent-236, score-0.619]

66 Second, the weight of the peak (integrated area under the curve) may be either greater or less than that of the rebound both in LGN relay cells [26] and simple cells of V1 [25], Figure 3right(C). [sent-243, score-0.676]

67 Neurons with peak weight exceeding that of rebound are often referred to as non-lagged while the others are known as lagged found both in cat [27, 28, 29] and monkey [30]. [sent-244, score-0.519]

68 By comparing experimentally measured receptive ﬁelds with those of the continuous lattice ﬁlter, Figure 4, we identify non-lagged neurons with the forward branch and lagged neurons with the backward branch. [sent-246, score-1.402]

69 Third, measurements of cross-correlation between RGCs and LGN cell spikes in lagged and nonlagged neurons reveals a difference of the transfer function indicative of the difference in underlying circuitry [30]. [sent-248, score-0.53]

70 This is consistent with backward pathway circuit of the Laguerre lattice ﬁlter, Figure 2, being more complex then that of the forward path (which results in different transfer function). [sent-249, score-0.893]

71 ” (or replacing ”more complex” with ”different”) Third, measurements of cross-correlation between RGCs and LGN cell spikes in lagged and nonlagged neurons reveals a difference of the transfer function indicative of the difference in underlying circuitry [31]. [sent-250, score-0.53]

72 This is consistent with the backward branch circuit of the Laguerre lattice ﬁlter, Figure 2, being different then that of the forward branch (which results in different transfer function). [sent-251, score-0.893]

73 In particular, a combination of different glutamate receptors such as AMPA and NMDA, as well as GABA receptors are thought to be responsible for observed responses in lagged cells [32]. [sent-252, score-0.57]

74 Fourth, the cross-link weights of the lattice ﬁlter can be learned using Hebbian rules, (12,13) which are biologically plausible [22, 23]. [sent-254, score-0.455]

75 6 Figure 4: Comparison of electrophysiologically measured responses of cat LGN cells with the continuous-time lattice ﬁlter model. [sent-257, score-0.857]

76 Top: Experimentally measured temporal receptive ﬁelds and step-stimulus responses of LGN cells (adapted from [26]). [sent-258, score-0.546]

77 Bottom: Typical examples of responses in the continuous-time lattice ﬁlter model. [sent-259, score-0.56]

78 As the same linear computation can be performed by circuits with a different arrangement of the same components, there are multiple implementations of the lattice ﬁlter. [sent-267, score-0.511]

79 In general, classiﬁcation of cells into lagged and non-lagged seems independent of their ON/OFF and X/Y classiﬁcation [31, 28, 29], but see[33]. [sent-270, score-0.395]

80 2 Insect visual pathway In insects, two cell types, L1 and L2, both post-synaptic to photoreceptors play an important role in visual processing. [sent-272, score-0.478]

81 Here, we put forward a hypothesis that the role of L1 and L2 in visual processing is similar to that of the two branches of the lattice ﬁlter. [sent-277, score-0.706]

82 We do not incorporate the ON/OFF distinction in the effectively linear lattice ﬁlter model but anticipate that such combined description will materialize in the future. [sent-278, score-0.455]

83 As was argued in Section 2, in forward prediction-error ﬁlters, the peak has greater weight than the rebound, while in backward prediction-error ﬁlters the opposite is true. [sent-279, score-0.41]

84 Indeed, Ca2+ imaging shows that responses of L1 and L2 to step-stimulus are different as predicted by the lattice ﬁlter model [35], Figure 5b. [sent-281, score-0.56]

85 Interestingly, the activity of L1 seems to represent minus forward error and L2 - plus backward error, suggesting that the lattice ﬁlter cross-links are excitatory. [sent-282, score-0.812]

86 To summarize, the predictions of the lattice ﬁlter model seem to be consistent with the physiological measurements in the ﬂy visual system and may help understand its operation. [sent-283, score-0.739]

87 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 5 10 time 15 20 − Forward Error 1 0 −1 0 Backward Error 1 0 −1 0 Figure 5: Response of the lattice ﬁlter and fruit ﬂy LMCs to a step-stimulus. [sent-285, score-0.455]

88 Left: Responses of the ﬁrst order discrete-time lattice ﬁlter to a step stimulus. [sent-286, score-0.455]

89 Predicted and the experimentally measured responses have qualitatively the same shape: a transient followed by sustained response, which has the same sign for the forward error and L1 and the opposite sign for the backward error and L2. [sent-288, score-0.58]

90 4 Discussion Motivated by the cascade structure of the visual pathway, we propose to model its operation with the lattice ﬁlter. [sent-289, score-0.662]

91 We demonstrate that the predictions of the continuous-time lattice ﬁlter model are consistent with the course of neural development and the physiological measurement in the LGN, V1 of cat and monkey, as well as ﬂy LMC neurons. [sent-290, score-0.638]

92 Therefore, lattice ﬁlters may offer a useful abstraction for understanding aspects of temporal processing in visual systems of vertebrates and invertebrates. [sent-291, score-0.716]

93 Efﬁcient coding of natural scenes in the lateral geniculate nucleus: experimental test of a computational theory. [sent-386, score-0.421]

94 Rules of connectivity between geniculate cells and simple cells in cat primary visual cortex. [sent-478, score-0.892]

95 Spatiotemporal receptive ﬁeld organization in the lateral geniculate nucleus of cats and kittens. [sent-486, score-0.567]

96 Two classes of single-input x-cells in cat lateral geniculate nucleus. [sent-491, score-0.45]

97 Temporal diversity in the lateral geniculate nucleus of cat. [sent-499, score-0.414]

98 Spatial and temporal response properties of lagged and nonlagged cells in cat lateral geniculate nucleus. [sent-502, score-1.01]

99 Two classes of single-input x-cells in cat lateral geniculate nucleus. [sent-512, score-0.45]

100 Neurotransmitter receptors mediating excitatory input to cells in the cat lateral geniculate nucleus. [sent-519, score-0.682]

similar papers computed by tfidf model

tfidf for this paper:

wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)

[('lattice', 0.455), ('lgn', 0.291), ('geniculate', 0.289), ('lter', 0.236), ('ftk', 0.224), ('lagged', 0.198), ('cells', 0.197), ('backward', 0.175), ('receptive', 0.153), ('visual', 0.135), ('rebound', 0.128), ('peak', 0.119), ('xt', 0.118), ('forward', 0.116), ('bk', 0.115), ('neurons', 0.113), ('lters', 0.111), ('responses', 0.105), ('msec', 0.105), ('subregion', 0.096), ('pathway', 0.094), ('laguerre', 0.092), ('temporal', 0.091), ('elds', 0.09), ('lateral', 0.087), ('prediction', 0.083), ('cell', 0.079), ('physiological', 0.076), ('stage', 0.075), ('cat', 0.074), ('yt', 0.066), ('dbk', 0.066), ('zt', 0.06), ('timing', 0.058), ('overlapped', 0.057), ('circuits', 0.056), ('retina', 0.055), ('decorrelation', 0.054), ('circuit', 0.053), ('rgc', 0.053), ('rgcs', 0.053), ('pathways', 0.05), ('impulse', 0.048), ('branch', 0.047), ('subtracts', 0.046), ('hebbian', 0.046), ('coding', 0.045), ('wk', 0.045), ('dk', 0.041), ('uk', 0.04), ('subregions', 0.04), ('measurements', 0.04), ('nonlagged', 0.04), ('calculates', 0.039), ('nucleus', 0.038), ('retinal', 0.037), ('operation', 0.037), ('cascade', 0.035), ('incoming', 0.035), ('stimuli', 0.035), ('photoreceptors', 0.035), ('receptors', 0.035), ('relay', 0.035), ('vertebrates', 0.035), ('neurophysiology', 0.034), ('response', 0.034), ('error', 0.034), ('delays', 0.033), ('predictions', 0.033), ('circuitry', 0.032), ('laughlin', 0.032), ('leaky', 0.032), ('vertebrate', 0.032), ('ganglion', 0.032), ('predictive', 0.032), ('activity', 0.032), ('experimentally', 0.032), ('longer', 0.031), ('signal', 0.031), ('sustained', 0.03), ('neuroscience', 0.03), ('extent', 0.03), ('integrator', 0.029), ('summation', 0.029), ('spikes', 0.028), ('sign', 0.027), ('eld', 0.027), ('stages', 0.027), ('rules', 0.027), ('compression', 0.027), ('alonso', 0.026), ('butts', 0.026), ('correlogram', 0.026), ('delaying', 0.026), ('electrophysiologically', 0.026), ('geniculocortical', 0.026), ('hartline', 0.026), ('invertebrates', 0.026), ('monosynaptically', 0.026), ('predictionerror', 0.026)]

similar papers list:

simIndex simValue paperId paperTitle

same-paper 1 1.0000002 23 nips-2012-A lattice filter model of the visual pathway

Author: Karol Gregor, Dmitri B. Chklovskii

2 0.20006442 62 nips-2012-Burn-in, bias, and the rationality of anchoring

Author: Falk Lieder, Thomas Griffiths, Noah Goodman

Abstract: Recent work in unsupervised feature learning has focused on the goal of discovering high-level features from unlabeled images. Much progress has been made in this direction, but in most cases it is still standard to use a large amount of labeled data in order to construct detectors sensitive to object classes or other complex patterns in the data. In this paper, we aim to test the hypothesis that unsupervised feature learning methods, provided with only unlabeled data, can learn high-level, invariant features that are sensitive to commonly-occurring objects. Though a handful of prior results suggest that this is possible when each object class accounts for a large fraction of the data (as in many labeled datasets), it is unclear whether something similar can be accomplished when dealing with completely unlabeled data. A major obstacle to this test, however, is scale: we cannot expect to succeed with small datasets or with small numbers of learned features. Here, we propose a large-scale feature learning system that enables us to carry out this experiment, learning 150,000 features from tens of millions of unlabeled images. Based on two scalable clustering algorithms (K-means and agglomerative clustering), we ﬁnd that our simple system can discover features sensitive to a commonly occurring object class (human faces) and can also combine these into detectors invariant to signiﬁcant global distortions like large translations and scale. 1

3 0.20006442 116 nips-2012-Emergence of Object-Selective Features in Unsupervised Feature Learning

Author: Adam Coates, Andrej Karpathy, Andrew Y. Ng

4 0.19124298 195 nips-2012-Learning visual motion in recurrent neural networks

Author: Marius Pachitariu, Maneesh Sahani

Abstract: We present a dynamic nonlinear generative model for visual motion based on a latent representation of binary-gated Gaussian variables. Trained on sequences of images, the model learns to represent different movement directions in different variables. We use an online approximate inference scheme that can be mapped to the dynamics of networks of neurons. Probed with drifting grating stimuli and moving bars of light, neurons in the model show patterns of responses analogous to those of direction-selective simple cells in primary visual cortex. Most model neurons also show speed tuning and respond equally well to a range of motion directions and speeds aligned to the constraint line of their respective preferred speed. We show how these computations are enabled by a speciﬁc pattern of recurrent connections learned by the model. 1

5 0.13909832 24 nips-2012-A mechanistic model of early sensory processing based on subtracting sparse representations

Author: Shaul Druckmann, Tao Hu, Dmitri B. Chklovskii

Abstract: Early stages of sensory systems face the challenge of compressing information from numerous receptors onto a much smaller number of projection neurons, a so called communication bottleneck. To make more efficient use of limited bandwidth, compression may be achieved using predictive coding, whereby predictable, or redundant, components of the stimulus are removed. In the case of the retina, Srinivasan et al. (1982) suggested that feedforward inhibitory connections subtracting a linear prediction generated from nearby receptors implement such compression, resulting in biphasic center-surround receptive fields. However, feedback inhibitory circuits are common in early sensory circuits and furthermore their dynamics may be nonlinear. Can such circuits implement predictive coding as well? Here, solving the transient dynamics of nonlinear reciprocal feedback circuits through analogy to a signal-processing algorithm called linearized Bregman iteration we show that nonlinear predictive coding can be implemented in an inhibitory feedback circuit. In response to a step stimulus, interneuron activity in time constructs progressively less sparse but more accurate representations of the stimulus, a temporally evolving prediction. This analysis provides a powerful theoretical framework to interpret and understand the dynamics of early sensory processing in a variety of physiological experiments and yields novel predictions regarding the relation between activity and stimulus statistics.

6 0.1385666 113 nips-2012-Efficient and direct estimation of a neural subunit model for sensory coding

7 0.12182651 341 nips-2012-The topographic unsupervised learning of natural sounds in the auditory cortex

8 0.10701154 41 nips-2012-Ancestor Sampling for Particle Gibbs

9 0.10293874 138 nips-2012-Fully Bayesian inference for neural models with negative-binomial spiking

10 0.10102954 218 nips-2012-Mixing Properties of Conditional Markov Chains with Unbounded Feature Functions

11 0.10088385 121 nips-2012-Expectation Propagation in Gaussian Process Dynamical Systems

12 0.093871452 37 nips-2012-Affine Independent Variational Inference

13 0.091156319 114 nips-2012-Efficient coding provides a direct link between prior and likelihood in perceptual Bayesian inference

14 0.089584641 324 nips-2012-Stochastic Gradient Descent with Only One Projection

15 0.088646203 56 nips-2012-Bayesian active learning with localized priors for fast receptive field characterization

16 0.084622532 252 nips-2012-On Multilabel Classification and Ranking with Partial Feedback

17 0.078797236 13 nips-2012-A Nonparametric Conjugate Prior Distribution for the Maximizing Argument of a Noisy Function

18 0.077510856 77 nips-2012-Complex Inference in Neural Circuits with Probabilistic Population Codes and Topic Models

19 0.076560296 238 nips-2012-Neurally Plausible Reinforcement Learning of Working Memory Tasks

20 0.075555004 365 nips-2012-Why MCA? Nonlinear sparse coding with spike-and-slab prior for neurally plausible image encoding

similar papers computed by lsi model

lsi for this paper:

topicId topicWeight

[(0, 0.155), (1, 0.03), (2, -0.108), (3, 0.251), (4, 0.059), (5, 0.126), (6, -0.002), (7, -0.077), (8, 0.034), (9, -0.002), (10, -0.018), (11, -0.07), (12, -0.141), (13, -0.0), (14, 0.044), (15, -0.068), (16, 0.002), (17, 0.079), (18, -0.015), (19, 0.164), (20, 0.022), (21, 0.117), (22, -0.013), (23, -0.075), (24, -0.02), (25, 0.008), (26, -0.047), (27, 0.008), (28, 0.009), (29, 0.023), (30, 0.005), (31, -0.034), (32, -0.002), (33, -0.024), (34, 0.013), (35, -0.029), (36, -0.008), (37, -0.082), (38, -0.061), (39, 0.016), (40, 0.051), (41, -0.044), (42, 0.029), (43, -0.049), (44, 0.014), (45, -0.002), (46, -0.061), (47, -0.003), (48, 0.024), (49, 0.026)]

similar papers list:

simIndex simValue paperId paperTitle

same-paper 1 0.9686448 23 nips-2012-A lattice filter model of the visual pathway

Author: Karol Gregor, Dmitri B. Chklovskii

2 0.82724899 113 nips-2012-Efficient and direct estimation of a neural subunit model for sensory coding

Author: Brett Vintch, Andrew Zaharia, J Movshon, Hhmi) Hhmi), Eero P. Simoncelli

Abstract: Many visual and auditory neurons have response properties that are well explained by pooling the rectiﬁed responses of a set of spatially shifted linear ﬁlters. These ﬁlters cannot be estimated using spike-triggered averaging (STA). Subspace methods such as spike-triggered covariance (STC) can recover multiple ﬁlters, but require substantial amounts of data, and recover an orthogonal basis for the subspace in which the ﬁlters reside rather than the ﬁlters themselves. Here, we assume a linear-nonlinear–linear-nonlinear (LN-LN) cascade model in which the ﬁrst linear stage is a set of shifted (‘convolutional’) copies of a common ﬁlter, and the ﬁrst nonlinear stage consists of rectifying scalar nonlinearities that are identical for all ﬁlter outputs. We refer to these initial LN elements as the ‘subunits’ of the receptive ﬁeld. The second linear stage then computes a weighted sum of the responses of the rectiﬁed subunits. We present a method for directly ﬁtting this model to spike data, and apply it to both simulated and real neuronal data from primate V1. The subunit model signiﬁcantly outperforms STA and STC in terms of cross-validated accuracy and efﬁciency. 1

3 0.70986193 195 nips-2012-Learning visual motion in recurrent neural networks

Author: Marius Pachitariu, Maneesh Sahani

4 0.65448558 62 nips-2012-Burn-in, bias, and the rationality of anchoring

Author: Falk Lieder, Thomas Griffiths, Noah Goodman

5 0.65448558 116 nips-2012-Emergence of Object-Selective Features in Unsupervised Feature Learning

Author: Adam Coates, Andrej Karpathy, Andrew Y. Ng

6 0.6374498 341 nips-2012-The topographic unsupervised learning of natural sounds in the auditory cortex

7 0.62612677 24 nips-2012-A mechanistic model of early sensory processing based on subtracting sparse representations

8 0.50019318 94 nips-2012-Delay Compensation with Dynamical Synapses

9 0.49815321 224 nips-2012-Multi-scale Hyper-time Hardware Emulation of Human Motor Nervous System Based on Spiking Neurons using FPGA

10 0.43474904 114 nips-2012-Efficient coding provides a direct link between prior and likelihood in perceptual Bayesian inference

11 0.41590363 46 nips-2012-Assessing Blinding in Clinical Trials

12 0.4115878 77 nips-2012-Complex Inference in Neural Circuits with Probabilistic Population Codes and Topic Models

13 0.4099139 238 nips-2012-Neurally Plausible Reinforcement Learning of Working Memory Tasks

14 0.39879283 90 nips-2012-Deep Learning of Invariant Features via Simulated Fixations in Video

15 0.39718553 56 nips-2012-Bayesian active learning with localized priors for fast receptive field characterization

16 0.39238906 138 nips-2012-Fully Bayesian inference for neural models with negative-binomial spiking

17 0.38123596 66 nips-2012-Causal discovery with scale-mixture model for spatiotemporal variance dependencies

18 0.38029781 333 nips-2012-Synchronization can Control Regularization in Neural Systems via Correlated Noise Processes

19 0.37237948 365 nips-2012-Why MCA? Nonlinear sparse coding with spike-and-slab prior for neurally plausible image encoding

20 0.37190917 121 nips-2012-Expectation Propagation in Gaussian Process Dynamical Systems

similar papers computed by lda model

lda for this paper:

topicId topicWeight

[(0, 0.035), (17, 0.061), (21, 0.091), (32, 0.26), (38, 0.074), (42, 0.024), (54, 0.051), (55, 0.029), (61, 0.012), (74, 0.045), (76, 0.076), (77, 0.018), (80, 0.084), (92, 0.027), (97, 0.027)]

similar papers list:

simIndex simValue paperId paperTitle

same-paper 1 0.7774815 23 nips-2012-A lattice filter model of the visual pathway

Author: Karol Gregor, Dmitri B. Chklovskii

2 0.65226275 309 nips-2012-Semi-supervised Eigenvectors for Locally-biased Learning

Author: Toke Hansen, Michael W. Mahoney

Abstract: In many applications, one has side information, e.g., labels that are provided in a semi-supervised manner, about a speciﬁc target region of a large data set, and one wants to perform machine learning and data analysis tasks “nearby” that pre-speciﬁed target region. Locally-biased problems of this sort are particularly challenging for popular eigenvector-based machine learning and data analysis tools. At root, the reason is that eigenvectors are inherently global quantities. In this paper, we address this issue by providing a methodology to construct semi-supervised eigenvectors of a graph Laplacian, and we illustrate how these locally-biased eigenvectors can be used to perform locally-biased machine learning. These semi-supervised eigenvectors capture successively-orthogonalized directions of maximum variance, conditioned on being well-correlated with an input seed set of nodes that is assumed to be provided in a semi-supervised manner. We also provide several empirical examples demonstrating how these semi-supervised eigenvectors can be used to perform locally-biased learning. 1

3 0.62841153 129 nips-2012-Fast Variational Inference in the Conjugate Exponential Family

Author: James Hensman, Magnus Rattray, Neil D. Lawrence

Abstract: We present a general method for deriving collapsed variational inference algorithms for probabilistic models in the conjugate exponential family. Our method uniﬁes many existing approaches to collapsed variational inference. Our collapsed variational inference leads to a new lower bound on the marginal likelihood. We exploit the information geometry of the bound to derive much faster optimization methods based on conjugate gradients for these models. Our approach is very general and is easily applied to any model where the mean ﬁeld update equations have been derived. Empirically we show signiﬁcant speed-ups for probabilistic inference using our bound. 1

4 0.59955555 144 nips-2012-Gradient-based kernel method for feature extraction and variable selection

Author: Kenji Fukumizu, Chenlei Leng

Abstract: We propose a novel kernel approach to dimension reduction for supervised learning: feature extraction and variable selection; the former constructs a small number of features from predictors, and the latter ﬁnds a subset of predictors. First, a method of linear feature extraction is proposed using the gradient of regression function, based on the recent development of the kernel method. In comparison with other existing methods, the proposed one has wide applicability without strong assumptions on the regressor or type of variables, and uses computationally simple eigendecomposition, thus applicable to large data sets. Second, in combination of a sparse penalty, the method is extended to variable selection, following the approach by Chen et al. [2]. Experimental results show that the proposed methods successfully ﬁnd effective features and variables without parametric models. 1

5 0.54411143 212 nips-2012-Minimax Multi-Task Learning and a Generalized Loss-Compositional Paradigm for MTL

Author: Nishant Mehta, Dongryeol Lee, Alexander G. Gray

Abstract: Since its inception, the modus operandi of multi-task learning (MTL) has been to minimize the task-wise mean of the empirical risks. We introduce a generalized loss-compositional paradigm for MTL that includes a spectrum of formulations as a subfamily. One endpoint of this spectrum is minimax MTL: a new MTL formulation that minimizes the maximum of the tasks’ empirical risks. Via a certain relaxation of minimax MTL, we obtain a continuum of MTL formulations spanning minimax MTL and classical MTL. The full paradigm itself is loss-compositional, operating on the vector of empirical risks. It incorporates minimax MTL, its relaxations, and many new MTL formulations as special cases. We show theoretically that minimax MTL tends to avoid worst case outcomes on newly drawn test tasks in the learning to learn (LTL) test setting. The results of several MTL formulations on synthetic and real problems in the MTL and LTL test settings are encouraging. 1

6 0.5374819 195 nips-2012-Learning visual motion in recurrent neural networks

7 0.52196062 263 nips-2012-Optimal Regularized Dual Averaging Methods for Stochastic Optimization

8 0.51828229 105 nips-2012-Dynamic Pruning of Factor Graphs for Maximum Marginal Prediction

9 0.51366919 1 nips-2012-3D Object Detection and Viewpoint Estimation with a Deformable 3D Cuboid Model

10 0.51205164 60 nips-2012-Bayesian nonparametric models for ranked data

11 0.51159793 113 nips-2012-Efficient and direct estimation of a neural subunit model for sensory coding

12 0.51115489 300 nips-2012-Scalable nonconvex inexact proximal splitting

13 0.50866902 190 nips-2012-Learning optimal spike-based representations

14 0.50814897 24 nips-2012-A mechanistic model of early sensory processing based on subtracting sparse representations

15 0.50729454 77 nips-2012-Complex Inference in Neural Circuits with Probabilistic Population Codes and Topic Models

16 0.50483596 302 nips-2012-Scaling MPE Inference for Constrained Continuous Markov Random Fields with Consensus Optimization

17 0.49433333 62 nips-2012-Burn-in, bias, and the rationality of anchoring

18 0.49433333 116 nips-2012-Emergence of Object-Selective Features in Unsupervised Feature Learning

19 0.49206868 83 nips-2012-Controlled Recognition Bounds for Visual Learning and Exploration

20 0.49178806 97 nips-2012-Diffusion Decision Making for Adaptive k-Nearest Neighbor Classification