nips nips2012 nips2012-195 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: pdf
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
Reference: text
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Learning visual motion in recurrent neural networks Marius Pachitariu, Maneesh Sahani Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit University College London, UK {marius, maneesh}@gatsby. [sent-1, score-0.538]
2 uk Abstract We present a dynamic nonlinear generative model for visual motion based on a latent representation of binary-gated Gaussian variables. [sent-4, score-0.402]
3 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. [sent-7, score-0.853]
4 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. [sent-8, score-1.242]
5 The survival of animal species depends on their ability to represent these trajectories efficiently and to distinguish visual motion on a fast time scale. [sent-12, score-0.358]
6 In primates, the classical picture of the visual system distinguishes between an object-recognition-focused ventral pathway and an equally large dorsal pathway for object localization and visual motion. [sent-14, score-0.381]
7 In this paper we propose a model for the very first cortical computation in the dorsal pathway: that of direction-selective simple cells in primary visual cortex [2]. [sent-15, score-0.338]
8 We continue a line of models which treats visual motion as a general sequence learning problem and proposes asymmetric Hebbian rules for learning such sequences [3, 4]. [sent-16, score-0.508]
9 Cortical architecture points to a more distributed formation of motion representation, with temporal sensitivity determined by the interaction of neurons with different spatial receptive fields. [sent-22, score-0.676]
10 However, these models are not expressive enough to encode visual motion and are more specifically designed to discover image dimensions invariant in time. [sent-24, score-0.358]
11 1 A recent hierarchical generative model for mid-level visual motion separates the phases and amplitudes of complex coefficients applied to complex spatial basis functions [8]. [sent-25, score-0.435]
12 This second layer learns to pool together first layer neurons with similar preferred directions. [sent-27, score-0.575]
13 The introduction of real and imaginary parts in the basis functions is inspired by older energy-based approaches where pairs of neurons with receptive fields in quadrature phase feed their outputs with different time delays to a higher-order neuron which thus acquires direction selectivity. [sent-28, score-0.888]
14 Another view of the development of visual motion processing sees it as a special case of the general problem of sequence learning [4]. [sent-33, score-0.406]
15 Many structures in the brain seem to show various forms of sequence learning, and recurrent networks of neurons can naturally produce learned sequences through their dynamics [9, 10]. [sent-34, score-0.676]
16 Predictive coding has indeed been proposed as a central mechanism to visual processing [11] and even as a more general theory of cortical responses [12]. [sent-42, score-0.412]
17 More specifically as a visual motion learning mechanism, sequence learning forms the basis of an earlier simple toy but biophysically realistic model based on STDP at the lateral synapses of a recurrently connected network [4]. [sent-43, score-0.659]
18 In another biophysically realistic model, recurrent connections are set by hand rather than learned but they produce direction selectivity and speed tuning in simulations of cat primary visual cortex [13]. [sent-44, score-1.181]
19 In the following section we define mathematically a probabilistic sequence modelling network which can learn patterns of visual motion in an unsupervised manner from 16 by 16 patches with 512 latent variables connected densely to each other in a nonlinear dynamical system. [sent-46, score-0.535]
20 Toy sequence learning model with biophysically realistic neurons from [4]. [sent-54, score-0.48]
21 Neurons N1 and N2 have the same RF as indicated by the dotted line, but after STDP learning of the recurrent connections with other neurons in the chain, N1 and N2 learn to fire only for rightward and respectively leftward motion. [sent-55, score-0.596]
22 The square box represents that the variable zt is not random, but is given by zt = xt ◦ ht . [sent-57, score-0.658]
23 2 2 Probabilistic Recurrent Neural Networks In this section we introduce the binary-gated Gaussian recurrent neural network as a generative model of sequences of images. [sent-58, score-0.343]
24 Binary-gated Gaussian sparse coding ([16], also called spike-and-slab sparse coding [17]1 ) may be seen as a limit of sparse coding with a mixture of Gaussians priors [18] where one mixture component has zero variance. [sent-64, score-0.339]
25 The joint log-likelihood is 2 2 Lt = − yt − W · (ht ◦ xt ) 2 /2τy − xt 2 /2τx + SC N ht log pj + (1 − ht ) log (1 − pj ) + const, j j + (1) j=1 where N is the number of basis filters in the model. [sent-68, score-1.253]
26 By using appropriately small activation probabilities p, the effective prior on ht ◦ xt can be made arbitrarily sparse. [sent-69, score-0.635]
27 Once values for xt and ht are filled in, the gradient of the joint log likelihood with respect to the parameters is easy to derive. [sent-74, score-0.592]
28 Note that xt for which ht = 0 can be integrated k k out in the likelihood, as they receive no contribution from the data term in (1). [sent-75, score-0.592]
29 During learning, we gradually adapted the average activation of each variable ht by changing the k prior activation probabilities pk . [sent-86, score-0.508]
30 Note how the xt are always drawn independently while the conditional probability for ht+1 depends only on ht ◦ xt . [sent-92, score-0.762]
31 First, similar to inference in bgG-RNN, the conditional dependence on ht ◦ xt , allows us to integrate out variables xt , xt+1 for which the respective gates in ht , ht+1 are 0. [sent-94, score-1.253]
32 Second, we observed that adding Gaussian linear dependencies between xt+1 and xt ◦ ht did not modify qualitatively the results reported here. [sent-95, score-0.592]
33 However, dropping P ht+1 |ht ◦ xt in favor of P xt+1 |ht ◦ xt resulted in a model which could no longer learn a direction-selective representation. [sent-96, score-0.34]
34 2 2 These are τx and τy , which control the relative strengths in the likelihood of three terms: the data likelihood, the smallness prior on the Gaussian variables and the interaction between sets of xt , ht 2 2 2 consecutive in time. [sent-111, score-0.592]
35 We stabilized the mean activation probability of each neuron individually by actively and quickly tuning the biases 4 b during learning. [sent-121, score-0.316]
36 ∂Lt bgG-RNN ∂Rjk = ht−1 xt−1 · ht − σ R ht ◦ xt + b j k k j . [sent-124, score-1.014]
37 (4) We will assume for neural interpretation that the positive and negative values of xt ◦ ht are encoded by different neurons. [sent-125, score-0.622]
38 If for a given neuron xt−1 is always positive, then the gradient (4) is only k strictly positive when ht−1 = 1 and ht = 1 and strictly negative when ht−1 = 1 and ht = 0. [sent-126, score-1.047]
39 In j j k k other words, the connection Rjk is strengthened when neuron k appears to cause neuron j to activate and inhibited if neuron k fails to activate neuron j. [sent-127, score-0.844]
40 Clips were chosen only if they seemed on visual inspection to have sufficient motion energy over the 100 frames. [sent-131, score-0.358]
41 The results presented below measure the ability of the model to produce responses similar to those of neurons recorded in primate experiments. [sent-133, score-0.545]
42 These two kinds of stimuli produce very clear motion signals, unlike motion produced by natural movies. [sent-135, score-0.52]
43 After comparing model responses to neural data, we finish with an analysis of the network connectivity pattern that underlies the responses of model neurons. [sent-137, score-0.399]
44 This interpretation is relatively common for sparse coding models and we also found that in many units direction selectivity was enhanced when the positive and negative parts of xt were separated (as opposed to taking ht as the neural response). [sent-142, score-1.227]
45 We added Gaussian noise to the spatially whitened test image sequences, partly to capture the noisy environments in cortex and partly to show robustness of direction selectivity to noise. [sent-145, score-0.728]
46 Here Rmax represents the response of a neuron in its preferred direction, while Ropp is the response in the direction opposite to that preferred. [sent-150, score-0.678]
47 This selectivity index is commonly used to characterize neural data. [sent-151, score-0.322]
48 To define a neuron’s preferred direction, we inferred latent coefficients over many repetitions of square gratings drifting in 24 directions, at speeds ranging from 0 to 3 pixels/frame in 0. [sent-152, score-0.479]
49 The neuron’s preferred direction was defined as the direction in which it responded most strongly, averaged over all speeds. [sent-155, score-0.635]
50 Once a preferred direction was established, we defined the neuron’s preferred speed, as the speed at which it responded most strongly in its preferred 5 direction. [sent-156, score-0.927]
51 Note that some neurons only respond weakly without motion, some are inhibited in the non-preferred direction compared to static responses and most have a clear peak in the preferred direction at specific speeds. [sent-164, score-1.189]
52 For each of the 10 strongest excitatory connections per neuron we plot a dot indicating the orientation selectivity of pre and post-synaptic units. [sent-169, score-0.773]
53 We found that most neurons in the model had sharp tuning curves and direction-selective responses. [sent-172, score-0.442]
54 We cross validated the value of the direction index with a new set of responses (fixing the preferred direction) to obtain an averaged DI of 0. [sent-173, score-0.539]
55 65, with many neurons having a DI close to 1 (see figure 2(a)). [sent-174, score-0.372]
56 714 of 1024 neurons were classified as direction-selective, on the basis of having DI > 0. [sent-176, score-0.405]
57 A neuron’s preferred direction was always close to orthogonal to the axis of its Gabor receptive field, except for a few degenerate cases around the edges of the patch. [sent-179, score-0.516]
58 We defined the population tuning curve as the average of the tuning curves of individual neurons, each aligned by their preferred direction of motion. [sent-180, score-0.608]
59 Neurons were also speed tuned, in that responses could vary greatly and systematically as a function of speed and DI was non-constant as a function of speed (see figure 2(b)). [sent-183, score-0.394]
60 Speed tuning is also present in recorded V1 neurons [22], and could form the basis for global motion computation based on the intersection of constraints method [23]. [sent-185, score-0.699]
61 Since drifting gratings only contain motion orthogonal to their orientation, we switched to small (1. [sent-189, score-0.423]
62 For each neuron we isolated its responses to drifting Gabors of the same orientation travelling at the 12 different speeds in the 24 different directions. [sent-193, score-0.635]
63 We present these for several neurons in polar plots in figure 3(b). [sent-194, score-0.453]
64 4 Connectomics in silico We had anticipated that the network would learn direction selectivity via specific patterns of recurrent connection, in a fashion similar to the toy model studied in [4]. [sent-197, score-0.719]
65 6 The most obvious connectivity pattern, clearly visible for single neurons in figure 3(a), shows that neurons in the model excite other neurons in their preferred direction and inhibit neurons in the opposite direction. [sent-199, score-1.938]
66 Asymmetry is not sufficient for direction selectivity to emerge. [sent-201, score-0.492]
67 In addition, strong excitatory projections have to connect together neurons with similar preferred orientations and similar preferred directions. [sent-202, score-0.938]
68 Only then will direction information propagate in the network in the identities of the active variables (and the signs of their respective coefficients xt ). [sent-203, score-0.45]
69 We considered for each neuron its 10 strongest excitatory outputs and calculated the expected deviation between the orientation of these outputs and the orientation of the root neuron. [sent-204, score-0.518]
70 The same pattern held when we considered the strongest excitatory inputs to a given neuron with an expected deviation of orientations of 24◦ . [sent-207, score-0.403]
71 We could not directly measure if neurons connected together according to direction selectivity because of the sign ambiguity of xt variables. [sent-208, score-1.073]
72 One can visually assess in figure 3(a) that neurons connected asymmetrically with respect to their RF axis, but did they also respond to motion primarily in that direction? [sent-209, score-0.681]
73 As can be seen in figure 3(b), which shows the same neurons as figure 3(a), they did indeed. [sent-210, score-0.372]
74 We can qualitatively assess recurrence primarily connected together neurons with similar direction preferences. [sent-212, score-0.611]
75 The root neurons are shown as filled black circles. [sent-216, score-0.412]
76 Filled red/blue circles show neurons to which the root neurons have strong positive/negative connections, with a cutoff at one fourth of the maximal absolute connection. [sent-217, score-0.816]
77 The polar plots show the responses of neurons presented in a to small, drifting Gabors that match their respective orientations. [sent-221, score-0.765]
78 Every small disc in every polar plot represents one combination of speed and direction and the color of the disc represents the magnitude of the response, with intense red being maximal and dark blue minimal. [sent-223, score-0.529]
79 The very last polar plot shows the average of the responses of the entire population, when all neurons are aligned by their preferred direction. [sent-226, score-0.889]
80 We also observed that neurons mostly projected strong excitatory outputs to other neurons that were aligned parallel to the root neuron’s main axis (visible in figures 3(a)). [sent-227, score-0.94]
81 A neuron X with a preferred direction v and preferred speed s has a so-called constraint line (CL), parallel to the Gabor’s axis. [sent-229, score-0.928]
82 7 When the neuron is activated by an edge E, the constraint line is formed by all possible future locations of edge E that are consistent with global motion in the direction v with speed s. [sent-230, score-0.746]
83 Due to the presence of long contours in natural scenes, the activation of X can predict at the next time step the activations of other neurons with RFs aligned on the CL. [sent-231, score-0.48]
84 To quantify the degree to which connections were made along a CL, for each neuron we fit a 2D Gaussian to the distribution of RF positions of the 20 most strongly connected neurons (the filled red circles in figure 3(a)), each further weighted by its strength. [sent-233, score-0.72]
85 The major axis of the Gaussians represent the constraint lines of the root neuron and are in 862 out of 1024 neurons less than 15◦ away from perfectly parallel to the root neurons’ axis. [sent-234, score-0.688]
86 Yet perhaps the strongest manifestation of the CL tuning property of neurons in the model can be seen in their responses to small stimuli drifting with different vector velocities. [sent-237, score-0.8]
87 Many of the neurons in figure 3(b) respond best when the velocity vector ends on the constraint line and a similar trend holds for the aligned population average. [sent-238, score-0.551]
88 It is already known from experiments of axon mappings simultaneous with dye-sensitive imaging that neurons in V1 are more likely to connect with neurons of similar orientations situated as far away as 4 mm / 4-8 minicolumns away [24]. [sent-239, score-0.846]
89 The model presented here makes three further predictions: that neurons connect more strongly to neurons in their preferred direction, that connected neurons lie on the constraint line and that they have similar preferred directions to the root neuron. [sent-240, score-1.701]
90 4 Discussion We have shown that a network of recurrently-connected neurons can learn to discriminate motion direction at the level of individual neurons. [sent-241, score-0.846]
91 Another shortcoming of these previous models is that they obtain direction selectivity by having variables with different RFs at different time lags, effectively treating time as a third spatial dimension. [sent-244, score-0.492]
92 The model neurons can be interpreted as predicting the motion of the stimulus. [sent-246, score-0.596]
93 It is tempting to think of V1 direction selective neurons as not only edge detectors and contour predictors (through the nonclassical RF) but also predictors of future edge locations, through their specific patterns of connectivity. [sent-250, score-0.572]
94 It is also known that unlike orientation and ocular dominance, direction selectivity requires visual experience to develop [26], perhaps because direction selectivity depends on a specific pattern of lateral connectivity unlike the largely feedforward orientation and binocular tuning. [sent-252, score-1.355]
95 Thus, we see a number of reasons to propose that direction selectivity in the cortex may indeed develop and be computed through a mechanism analagous to the one we have developed here. [sent-254, score-0.57]
96 A network that uses few active neurones to code visual input predicts the diverse shapes of cortical receptive fields. [sent-308, score-0.325]
97 The derivation of direction selectivity in the striate cortex. [sent-324, score-0.521]
98 Velocity sensitivity and direction selectivity of neurons in areas V1 and V2 of the monkey: influence of eccentricity. [sent-327, score-0.864]
99 Orientation selectivity and the arrangement of horizontal connections in tree shrew striate cortex. [sent-333, score-0.395]
100 The development of direction selectivity in ferret visual cortex requires early visual experience. [sent-339, score-0.838]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('ht', 0.422), ('neurons', 0.372), ('selectivity', 0.292), ('motion', 0.224), ('preferred', 0.203), ('neuron', 0.203), ('direction', 0.2), ('xt', 0.17), ('recurrent', 0.15), ('drifting', 0.146), ('responses', 0.136), ('visual', 0.134), ('speed', 0.086), ('polar', 0.081), ('coding', 0.081), ('receptive', 0.08), ('cortex', 0.078), ('speeds', 0.077), ('connections', 0.074), ('orientation', 0.073), ('lters', 0.072), ('orientations', 0.071), ('tuning', 0.07), ('sequences', 0.069), ('aligned', 0.065), ('disc', 0.065), ('lt', 0.063), ('cortical', 0.061), ('biophysically', 0.06), ('excitatory', 0.058), ('cients', 0.056), ('gure', 0.054), ('partly', 0.054), ('mp', 0.053), ('gratings', 0.053), ('gabors', 0.053), ('di', 0.052), ('ltering', 0.05), ('whitened', 0.05), ('network', 0.05), ('clips', 0.049), ('sequence', 0.048), ('rf', 0.047), ('lled', 0.047), ('connectivity', 0.047), ('respond', 0.046), ('neuroscience', 0.046), ('coef', 0.045), ('gabor', 0.045), ('lateral', 0.044), ('generative', 0.044), ('activation', 0.043), ('stimulus', 0.043), ('strongest', 0.041), ('root', 0.04), ('stdp', 0.04), ('marius', 0.04), ('ropp', 0.04), ('patches', 0.04), ('inference', 0.039), ('connected', 0.039), ('pathway', 0.039), ('cl', 0.039), ('sc', 0.039), ('produce', 0.037), ('response', 0.036), ('yt', 0.036), ('directions', 0.036), ('stimuli', 0.035), ('reproduction', 0.035), ('dorsal', 0.035), ('velocity', 0.035), ('axis', 0.033), ('basis', 0.033), ('zt', 0.033), ('line', 0.033), ('rfs', 0.032), ('inhibited', 0.032), ('responded', 0.032), ('sparse', 0.032), ('circles', 0.032), ('plot', 0.032), ('greedy', 0.031), ('reproduce', 0.031), ('connect', 0.031), ('maneesh', 0.031), ('rjk', 0.031), ('neural', 0.03), ('deviation', 0.03), ('cells', 0.03), ('elds', 0.03), ('respective', 0.03), ('striate', 0.029), ('neocortical', 0.029), ('gaussian', 0.028), ('hebbian', 0.028), ('triggered', 0.028), ('frame', 0.027), ('toy', 0.027), ('outgoing', 0.027)]
simIndex simValue paperId paperTitle
same-paper 1 1.0000001 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
Author: Xue-xin Wei, Alan Stocker
Abstract: A common challenge for Bayesian models of perception is the fact that the two fundamental Bayesian components, the prior distribution and the likelihood function, are formally unconstrained. Here we argue that a neural system that emulates Bayesian inference is naturally constrained by the way it represents sensory information in populations of neurons. More specifically, we show that an efficient coding principle creates a direct link between prior and likelihood based on the underlying stimulus distribution. The resulting Bayesian estimates can show biases away from the peaks of the prior distribution, a behavior seemingly at odds with the traditional view of Bayesian estimation, yet one that has been reported in human perception. We demonstrate that our framework correctly accounts for the repulsive biases previously reported for the perception of visual orientation, and show that the predicted tuning characteristics of the model neurons match the reported orientation tuning properties of neurons in primary visual cortex. Our results suggest that efficient coding is a promising hypothesis in constraining Bayesian models of perceptual inference. 1 Motivation Human perception is not perfect. Biases have been observed in a large number of perceptual tasks and modalities, of which the most salient ones constitute many well-known perceptual illusions. It has been suggested, however, that these biases do not reflect a failure of perception but rather an observer’s attempt to optimally combine the inherently noisy and ambiguous sensory information with appropriate prior knowledge about the world [13, 4, 14]. This hypothesis, which we will refer to as the Bayesian hypothesis, has indeed proven quite successful in providing a normative explanation of perception at a qualitative and, more recently, quantitative level (see e.g. [15]). A major challenge in forming models based on the Bayesian hypothesis is the correct selection of two main components: the prior distribution (belief) and the likelihood function. This has encouraged some to criticize the Bayesian hypothesis altogether, claiming that arbitrary choices for these components always allow for unjustified post-hoc explanations of the data [1]. We do not share this criticism, referring to a number of successful attempts to constrain prior beliefs and likelihood functions based on principled grounds. For example, prior beliefs have been defined as the relative distribution of the sensory variable in the environment in cases where these statistics are relatively easy to measure (e.g. local visual orientations [16]), or where it can be assumed that subjects have learned them over the course of the experiment (e.g. time perception [17]). Other studies have constrained the likelihood function according to known noise characteristics of neurons that are crucially involved in the specific perceptual process (e.g motion tuned neurons in visual cor∗ http://www.sas.upenn.edu/ astocker/lab 1 world neural representation efficient encoding percept Bayesian decoding Figure 1: Encoding-decoding framework. A stimulus representing a sensory variable θ elicits a firing rate response R = {r1 , r2 , ..., rN } in a population of N neurons. The perceptual task is to generate a ˆ good estimate θ(R) of the presented value of the sensory variable based on this population response. Our framework assumes that encoding is efficient, and decoding is Bayesian based on the likelihood p(R|θ), the prior p(θ), and a squared-error loss function. tex [18]). However, we agree that finding appropriate constraints is generally difficult and that prior beliefs and likelihood functions have been often selected on the basis of mathematical convenience. Here, we propose that the efficient coding hypothesis [19] offers a joint constraint on the prior and likelihood function in neural implementations of Bayesian inference. Efficient coding provides a normative description of how neurons encode sensory information, and suggests a direct link between measured perceptual discriminability, neural tuning characteristics, and environmental statistics [11]. We show how this link can be extended to a full Bayesian account of perception that includes perceptual biases. We validate our model framework against behavioral as well as neural data characterizing the perception of visual orientation. We demonstrate that we can account not only for the reported perceptual biases away from the cardinal orientations, but also for the specific response characteristics of orientation-tuned neurons in primary visual cortex. Our work is a novel proposal of how two important normative hypotheses in perception science, namely efficient (en)coding and Bayesian decoding, might be linked. 2 Encoding-decoding framework We consider perception as an inference process that takes place along the simplified neural encodingdecoding cascade illustrated in Fig. 11 . 2.1 Efficient encoding Efficient encoding proposes that the tuning characteristics of a neural population are adapted to the prior distribution p(θ) of the sensory variable such that the population optimally represents the sensory variable [19]. Different definitions of “optimally” are possible, and may lead to different results. Here, we assume an efficient representation that maximizes the mutual information between the sensory variable and the population response. With this definition and an upper limit on the total firing activity, the square-root of the Fisher Information must be proportional to the prior distribution [12, 21]. In order to constrain the tuning curves of individual neurons in the population we also impose a homogeneity constraint, requiring that there exists a one-to-one mapping F (θ) that transforms the ˜ physical space with units θ to a homogeneous space with units θ = F (θ) in which the stimulus distribution becomes uniform. This defines the mapping as θ F (θ) = p(χ)dχ , (1) −∞ which is the cumulative of the prior distribution p(θ). We then assume a neural population with identical tuning curves that evenly tiles the stimulus range in this homogeneous space. The population provides an efficient representation of the sensory variable θ according to the above constraints [11]. ˜ The tuning curves in the physical space are obtained by applying the inverse mapping F −1 (θ). Fig. 2 1 In the context of this paper, we consider ‘inferring’, ‘decoding’, and ‘estimating’ as synonymous. 2 stimulus distribution d samples # a Fisher information discriminability and average firing rates and b firing rate [ Hz] efficient encoding F likelihood function F -1 likelihood c symmetric asymmetric homogeneous space physical space Figure 2: Efficient encoding constrains the likelihood function. a) Prior distribution p(θ) derived from stimulus statistics. b) Efficient coding defines the shape of the tuning curves in the physical space by transforming a set of homogeneous neurons using a mapping F −1 that is the inverse of the cumulative of the prior p(θ) (see Eq. (1)). c) As a result, the likelihood shape is constrained by the prior distribution showing heavier tails on the side of lower prior density. d) Fisher information, discrimination threshold, and average firing rates are all uniform in the homogeneous space. illustrates the applied efficient encoding scheme, the mapping, and the concept of the homogeneous space for the example of a symmetric, exponentially decaying prior distribution p(θ). The key idea here is that by assuming efficient encoding, the prior (i.e. the stimulus distribution in the world) directly constrains the likelihood function. In particular, the shape of the likelihood is determined by the cumulative distribution of the prior. As a result, the likelihood is generally asymmetric, as shown in Fig. 2, exhibiting heavier tails on the side of the prior with lower density. 2.2 Bayesian decoding Let us consider a population of N sensory neurons that efficiently represents a stimulus variable θ as described above. A stimulus θ0 elicits a specific population response that is characterized by the vector R = [r1 , r2 , ..., rN ] where ri is the spike-count of the ith neuron over a given time-window τ . Under the assumption that the variability in the individual firing rates is governed by a Poisson process, we can write the likelihood function over θ as N p(R|θ) = (τ fi (θ))ri −τ fi (θ) e , ri ! i=1 (2) ˆ with fi (θ) describing the tuning curve of neuron i. We then define a Bayesian decoder θLSE as the estimator that minimizes the expected squared-error between the estimate and the true stimulus value, thus θp(R|θ)p(θ)dθ ˆ θLSE (R) = , (3) p(R|θ)p(θ)dθ where we use Bayes’ rule to appropriately combine the sensory evidence with the stimulus prior p(θ). 3 Bayesian estimates can be biased away from prior peaks Bayesian models of perception typically predict perceptual biases toward the peaks of the prior density, a characteristic often considered a hallmark of Bayesian inference. This originates from the 3 a b prior attraction prior prior attraction likelihood repulsion! likelihood c prior prior repulsive bias likelihood likelihood mean posterior mean posterior mean Figure 3: Bayesian estimates biased away from the prior. a) If the likelihood function is symmetric, then the estimate (posterior mean) is, on average, shifted away from the actual value of the sensory variable θ0 towards the prior peak. b) Efficient encoding typically leads to an asymmetric likelihood function whose normalized mean is away from the peak of the prior (relative to θ0 ). The estimate is determined by a combination of prior attraction and shifted likelihood mean, and can exhibit an overall repulsive bias. c) If p(θ0 ) < 0 and the likelihood is relatively narrow, then (1/p(θ)2 ) > 0 (blue line) and the estimate is biased away from the prior peak (see Eq. (6)). common approach of choosing a parametric description of the likelihood function that is computationally convenient (e.g. Gaussian). As a consequence, likelihood functions are typically assumed to be symmetric (but see [23, 24]), leaving the bias of the Bayesian estimator to be mainly determined by the shape of the prior density, i.e. leading to biases toward the peak of the prior (Fig. 3a). In our model framework, the shape of the likelihood function is constrained by the stimulus prior via efficient neural encoding, and is generally not symmetric for non-flat priors. It has a heavier tail on the side with lower prior density (Fig. 3b). The intuition is that due to the efficient allocation of neural resources, the side with smaller prior density will be encoded less accurately, leading to a broader likelihood function on that side. The likelihood asymmetry pulls the Bayes’ least-squares estimate away from the peak of the prior while at the same time the prior pulls it toward its peak. Thus, the resulting estimation bias is the combination of these two counter-acting forces - and both are determined by the prior! 3.1 General derivation of the estimation bias In the following, we will formally derive the mean estimation bias b(θ) of the proposed encodingdecoding framework. Specifically, we will study the conditions for which the bias is repulsive i.e. away from the peak of the prior density. ˆ We first re-write the estimator θLSE (3) by replacing θ with the inverse of its mapping to the homo−1 ˜ geneous space, i.e., θ = F (θ). The motivation for this is that the likelihood in the homogeneous space is symmetric (Fig. 2). Given a value θ0 and the elicited population response R, we can write the estimator as ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ θp(R|θ)p(θ)dθ F −1 (θ)p(R|F −1 (θ))p(F −1 (θ))dF −1 (θ) ˆ θLSE (R) = = . ˜ ˜ ˜ p(R|θ)p(θ)dθ p(R|F −1 (θ))p(F −1 (θ))dF −1 (θ) Calculating the derivative of the inverse function and noting that F is the cumulative of the prior density, we get 1 1 1 ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ dθ = dθ. dF −1 (θ) = (F −1 (θ)) dθ = dθ = −1 (θ)) ˜ F (θ) p(θ) p(F ˆ Hence, we can simplify θLSE (R) as ˆ θLSE (R) = ˜ ˜ ˜ F −1 (θ)p(R|F −1 (θ))dθ . ˜ ˜ p(R|F −1 (θ))dθ With ˜ K(R, θ) = ˜ p(R|F −1 (θ)) ˜ ˜ p(R|F −1 (θ))dθ 4 we can further simplify the notation and get ˆ θLSE (R) = ˜ ˜ ˜ F −1 (θ)K(R, θ)dθ . (4) ˆ ˜ In order to get the expected value of the estimate, θLSE (θ), we marginalize (4) over the population response space S, ˆ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ θLSE (θ) = p(R)F −1 (θ)K(R, θ)dθdR S = F −1 ˜ (θ)( ˜ ˜ p(R)K(R, θ)dR)dθ = ˜ ˜ ˜ F −1 (θ)L(θ)dθ, S where we define ˜ L(θ) = ˜ p(R)K(R, θ)dR. S ˜ ˜ ˜ It follows that L(θ)dθ = 1. Due to the symmetry in this space, it can be shown that L(θ) is ˜0 . Intuitively, L(θ) can be thought as the normalized ˜ symmetric around the true stimulus value θ average likelihood in the homogeneous space. We can then compute the expected bias at θ0 as b(θ0 ) = ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ F −1 (θ)L(θ)dθ − F −1 (θ0 ) (5) ˜ This is expression is general where F −1 (θ) is defined as the inverse of the cumulative of an arbitrary ˜ prior density p(θ) (see Eq. (1)) and the dispersion of L(θ) is determined by the internal noise level. ˜ ˜ Assuming the prior density to be smooth, we expand F −1 in a neighborhood (θ0 − h, θ0 + h) that is larger than the support of the likelihood function. Using Taylor’s theorem with mean-value forms of the remainder, we get 1 ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ F −1 (θ) = F −1 (θ0 ) + F −1 (θ0 ) (θ − θ0 ) + F −1 (θx ) (θ − θ0 )2 , 2 ˜ ˜ ˜ with θx lying between θ0 and θ. By applying this expression to (5), we find ˜ θ0 +h b(θ0 ) = = 1 2 ˜ θ0 −h 1 −1 ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ 1 F (θx )θ (θ − θ0 )2 L(θ)dθ = ˜ 2 2 ˜ θ0 +h −( ˜ θ0 −h p(θx )θ ˜ ˜ 2 ˜ ˜ 1 )(θ − θ0 ) L(θ)dθ = p(θx )3 4 ˜ θ0 +h 1 ˜ − θ0 )2 L(θ)dθ ˜ ˜ ˜ ( ) ˜(θ ˜ p(F −1 (θx )) θ ( 1 ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ) (θ − θ0 )2 L(θ)dθ. p(θx )2 θ ˜ θ0 −h ˜ θ0 +h ˜ θ0 −h In general, there is no simple rule to judge the sign of b(θ0 ). However, if the prior is monotonic ˜ ˜ on the interval F −1 ((θ0 − h, θ0 + h)), then the sign of ( p(θ1 )2 ) is always the same as the sign of x 1 1 ( p(θ0 )2 ) . Also, if the likelihood is sufficiently narrow we can approximate ( p(θ1 )2 ) by ( p(θ0 )2 ) , x and therefore approximate the bias as b(θ0 ) ≈ C( 1 ) , p(θ0 )2 (6) where C is a positive constant. The result is quite surprising because it states that as long as the prior is monotonic over the support of the likelihood function, the expected estimation bias is always away from the peaks of the prior! 3.2 Internal (neural) versus external (stimulus) noise The above derivation of estimation bias is based on the assumption that all uncertainty about the sensory variable is caused by neural response variability. This level of internal noise depends on the response magnitude, and thus can be modulated e.g. by changing stimulus contrast. This contrastcontrolled noise modulation is commonly exploited in perceptual studies (e.g. [18]). Internal noise will always lead to repulsive biases in our framework if the prior is monotonic. If internal noise is low, the likelihood is narrow and thus the bias is small. Increasing internal noise leads to increasingly 5 larger biases up to the point where the likelihood becomes wide enough such that monotonicity of the prior over the support of the likelihood is potentially violated. Stimulus noise is another way to modulate the noise level in perception (e.g. random-dot motion stimuli). Such external noise, however, has a different effect on the shape of the likelihood function as compared to internal noise. It modifies the likelihood function (2) by convolving it with the noise kernel. External noise is frequently chosen as additive and symmetric (e.g. zero-mean Gaussian). It is straightforward to prove that such symmetric external noise does not lead to a change in the mean of the likelihood, and thus does not alter the repulsive effect induced by its asymmetry. However, by increasing the overall width of the likelihood, the attractive influence of the prior increases, resulting in an estimate that is closer to the prior peak than without external noise2 . 4 Perception of visual orientation We tested our framework by modelling the perception of visual orientation. Our choice was based on the fact that i) we have pretty good estimates of the prior distribution of local orientations in natural images, ii) tuning characteristics of orientation selective neurons in visual cortex are wellstudied (monkey/cat), and iii) biases in perceived stimulus orientation have been well characterized. We start by creating an efficient neural population based on measured prior distributions of local visual orientation, and then compare the resulting tuning characteristics of the population and the predicted perceptual biases with reported data in the literature. 4.1 Efficient neural model population for visual orientation Previous studies measured the statistics of the local orientation in large sets of natural images and consistently found that the orientation distribution is multimodal, peaking at the two cardinal orientations as shown in Fig. 4a [16, 20]. We assumed that the visual system’s prior belief over orientation p(θ) follows this distribution and approximate it formally as p(θ) ∝ 2 − | sin(θ)| (black line in Fig. 4b) . (7) Based on this prior distribution we defined an efficient neural representation for orientation. We assumed a population of model neurons (N = 30) with tuning curves that follow a von-Mises distribution in the homogeneous space on top of a constant spontaneous firing rate (5 Hz). We then ˜ applied the inverse transformation F −1 (θ) to all these tuning curves to get the corresponding tuning curves in the physical space (Fig. 4b - red curves), where F (θ) is the cumulative of the prior (7). The concentration parameter for the von-Mises tuning curves was set to κ ≈ 1.6 in the homogeneous space in order to match the measured average tuning width (∼ 32 deg) of neurons in area V1 of the macaque [9]. 4.2 Predicted tuning characteristics of neurons in primary visual cortex The orientation tuning characteristics of our model population well match neurophysiological data of neurons in primary visual cortex (V1). Efficient encoding predicts that the distribution of neurons’ preferred orientation follows the prior, with more neurons tuned to cardinal than oblique orientations by a factor of approximately 1.5. A similar ratio has been found for neurons in area V1 of monkey/cat [9, 10]. Also, the tuning widths of the model neurons vary between 25-42 deg depending on their preferred tuning (see Fig. 4c), matching the measured tuning width ratio of 0.6 between neurons tuned to the cardinal versus oblique orientations [9]. An important prediction of our model is that most of the tuning curves should be asymmetric. Such asymmetries have indeed been reported for the orientation tuning of neurons in area V1 [6, 7, 8]. We computed the asymmetry index for our model population as defined in previous studies [6, 7], and plotted it as a function of the preferred tuning of each neuron (Fig. 4d). The overall asymmetry index in our model population is 1.24 ± 0.11, which approximately matches the measured values for neurons in area V1 of the cat (1.26 ± 0.06) [6]. It also predicts that neurons tuned to the cardinal and oblique orientations should show less symmetry than those tuned to orientations in between. Finally, 2 Note, that these predictions are likely to change if the external noise is not symmetric. 6 a b 25 firing rate(Hz) 0 orientation(deg) asymmetry vs. tuning width 1.0 2.0 90 2.0 e asymmetry 1.0 0 asymmetry index 50 30 width (deg) 10 90 preferred tuning(deg) -90 0 d 0 0 90 asymmetry index 0 orientation(deg) tuning width -90 0 0 probability 0 -90 c efficient representation 0.01 0.01 image statistics -90 0 90 preferred tuning(deg) 25 30 35 40 tuning width (deg) Figure 4: Tuning characteristics of model neurons. a) Distribution of local orientations in natural images, replotted from [16]. b) Prior used in the model (black) and predicted tuning curves according to efficient coding (red). c) Tuning width as a function of preferred orientation. d) Tuning curves of cardinal and oblique neurons are more symmetric than those tuned to orientations in between. e) Both narrowly and broadly tuned neurons neurons show less asymmetry than neurons with tuning widths in between. neurons with tuning widths at the lower and upper end of the range are predicted to exhibit less asymmetry than those neurons whose widths lie in between these extremes (illustrated in Fig. 4e). These last two predictions have not been tested yet. 4.3 Predicted perceptual biases Our model framework also provides specific predictions for the expected perceptual biases. Humans show systematic biases in perceived orientation of visual stimuli such as e.g. arrays of Gabor patches (Fig. 5a,d). Two types of biases can be distinguished: First, perceived orientations show an absolute bias away from the cardinal orientations, thus away from the peaks of the orientation prior [2, 3]. We refer to these biases as absolute because they are typically measured by adjusting a noise-free reference until it matched the orientation of the test stimulus. Interestingly, these repulsive absolute biases are the larger the smaller the external stimulus noise is (see Fig. 5b). Second, the relative bias between the perceived overall orientations of a high-noise and a low-noise stimulus is toward the cardinal orientations as shown in Fig. 5c, and thus toward the peak of the prior distribution [3, 16]. The predicted perceptual biases of our model are shown Fig. 5e,f. We computed the likelihood function according to (2) and used the prior in (7). External noise was modeled by convolving the stimulus likelihood function with a Gaussian (different widths for different noise levels). The predictions well match both, the reported absolute bias away as well as the relative biases toward the cardinal orientations. Note, that our model framework correctly accounts for the fact that less external noise leads to larger absolute biases (see also discussion in section 3.2). 5 Discussion We have presented a modeling framework for perception that combines efficient (en)coding and Bayesian decoding. Efficient coding imposes constraints on the tuning characteristics of a population of neurons according to the stimulus distribution (prior). It thus establishes a direct link between prior and likelihood, and provides clear constraints on the latter for a Bayesian observer model of perception. We have shown that the resulting likelihoods are in general asymmetric, with 7 absolute bias (data) b c relative bias (data) -4 0 bias(deg) 4 a low-noise stimulus -90 e 90 absolute bias (model) low external noise high external noise 3 high-noise stimulus -90 f 0 90 relative bias (model) 0 bias(deg) d 0 attraction -3 repulsion -90 0 orientation (deg) 90 -90 0 orientation (deg) 90 Figure 5: Biases in perceived orientation: Human data vs. Model prediction. a,d) Low- and highnoise orientation stimuli of the type used in [3, 16]. b) Humans show absolute biases in perceived orientation that are away from the cardinal orientations. Data replotted from [2] (pink squares) and [3] (green (black) triangles: bias for low (high) external noise). c) Relative bias between stimuli with different external noise level (high minus low). Data replotted from [3] (blue triangles) and [16] (red circles). e,f) Model predictions for absolute and relative bias. heavier tails away from the prior peaks. We demonstrated that such asymmetric likelihoods can lead to the counter-intuitive prediction that a Bayesian estimator is biased away from the peaks of the prior distribution. Interestingly, such repulsive biases have been reported for human perception of visual orientation, yet a principled and consistent explanation of their existence has been missing so far. Here, we suggest that these counter-intuitive biases directly follow from the asymmetries in the likelihood function induced by efficient neural encoding of the stimulus. The good match between our model predictions and the measured perceptual biases and orientation tuning characteristics of neurons in primary visual cortex provides further support of our framework. Previous work has suggested that there might be a link between stimulus statistics, neuronal tuning characteristics, and perceptual behavior based on efficient coding principles, yet none of these studies has recognized the importance of the resulting likelihood asymmetries [16, 11]. We have demonstrated here that such asymmetries can be crucial in explaining perceptual data, even though the resulting estimates appear “anti-Bayesian” at first sight (see also models of sensory adaptation [23]). Note, that we do not provide a neural implementation of the Bayesian inference step. However, we and others have proposed various neural decoding schemes that can approximate Bayes’ leastsquares estimation using efficient coding [26, 25, 22]. It is also worth pointing out that our estimator is set to minimize total squared-error, and that other choices of the loss function (e.g. MAP estimator) could lead to different predictions. Our framework is general and should be directly applicable to other modalities. In particular, it might provide a new explanation for perceptual biases that are hard to reconcile with traditional Bayesian approaches [5]. Acknowledgments We thank M. Jogan and A. Tank for helpful comments on the manuscript. This work was partially supported by grant ONR N000141110744. 8 References [1] M. Jones, and B. C. Love. Bayesian fundamentalism or enlightenment? On the explanatory status and theoretical contributions of Bayesian models of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 169–231,2011. [2] D. P. Andrews. Perception of contours in the central fovea. Nature, 205:1218- 1220, 1965. [3] A. Tomassini, M. J.Morgam. and J. A. Solomon. Orientation uncertainty reduces perceived obliquity. Vision Res, 50, 541–547, 2010. [4] W. S. Geisler, D. Kersten. Illusions, perception and Bayes. Nature Neuroscience, 5(6):508- 510, 2002. [5] M. O. Ernst Perceptual learning: inverting the size-weight illusion. Current Biology, 19:R23- R25, 2009. [6] G. H. Henry, B. Dreher, P. O. Bishop. Orientation specificity of cells in cat striate cortex. J Neurophysiol, 37(6):1394-409,1974. [7] D. Rose, C. Blakemore An analysis of orientation selectivity in the cat’s visual cortex. Exp Brain Res., Apr 30;20(1):1-17, 1974. [8] N. V. Swindale. Orientation tuning curves: empirical description and estimation of parameters. Biol Cybern., 78(1):45-56, 1998. [9] R. L. De Valois, E. W. Yund, N. Hepler. The orientation and direction selectivity of cells in macaque visual cortex. Vision Res.,22, 531544,1982. [10] B. Li, M. R. Peterson, R. D. Freeman. The oblique effect: a neural basis in the visual cortex. J. Neurophysiol., 90, 204217, 2003. [11] D. Ganguli and E.P. Simoncelli. Implicit encoding of prior probabilities in optimal neural populations. In Adv. Neural Information Processing Systems NIPS 23, vol. 23:658–666, 2011. [12] M. D. McDonnell, N. G. Stocks. Maximally Informative Stimuli and Tuning Curves for Sigmoidal RateCoding Neurons and Populations. Phys Rev Lett., 101(5):058103, 2008. [13] H Helmholtz. Treatise on Physiological Optics (transl.). Thoemmes Press, Bristol, U.K., 2000. Original publication 1867. [14] Y. Weiss, E. Simoncelli, and E. Adelson. Motion illusions as optimal percept. Nature Neuroscience, 5(6):598–604, June 2002. [15] D.C. Knill and W. Richards, editors. Perception as Bayesian Inference. Cambridge University Press, 1996. [16] A R Girshick, M S Landy, and E P Simoncelli. Cardinal rules: visual orientation perception reflects knowledge of environmental statistics. Nat Neurosci, 14(7):926–932, Jul 2011. [17] M. Jazayeri and M.N. Shadlen. Temporal context calibrates interval timing. Nature Neuroscience, 13(8):914–916, 2010. [18] A.A. Stocker and E.P. Simoncelli. Noise characteristics and prior expectations in human visual speed perception. Nature Neuroscience, pages 578–585, April 2006. [19] H.B. Barlow. Possible principles underlying the transformation of sensory messages. In W.A. Rosenblith, editor, Sensory Communication, pages 217–234. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1961. [20] D.M. Coppola, H.R. Purves, A.N. McCoy, and D. Purves The distribution of oriented contours in the real world. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A., 95(7): 4002–4006, 1998. [21] N. Brunel and J.-P. Nadal. Mutual information, Fisher information and population coding. Neural Computation, 10, 7, 1731–1757, 1998. [22] X-X. Wei and A.A. Stocker. Bayesian inference with efficient neural population codes. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning - ICANN 2012, Lausanne, Switzerland, volume 7552, pages 523–530, 2012. [23] A.A. Stocker and E.P. Simoncelli. Sensory adaptation within a Bayesian framework for perception. In Y. Weiss, B. Sch¨ lkopf, and J. Platt, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 18, pages o 1291–1298. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006. Oral presentation. [24] D.C. Knill. Robust cue integration: A Bayesian model and evidence from cue-conflict studies with stereoscopic and figure cues to slant. Journal of Vision, 7(7):1–24, 2007. [25] Deep Ganguli. Efficient coding and Bayesian inference with neural populations. PhD thesis, Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, NY, September 2012. [26] B. Fischer. Bayesian estimates from heterogeneous population codes. In Proc. IEEE Intl. Joint Conf. on Neural Networks. IEEE, 2010. 9
3 0.23603316 190 nips-2012-Learning optimal spike-based representations
Author: Ralph Bourdoukan, David Barrett, Sophie Deneve, Christian K. Machens
Abstract: How can neural networks learn to represent information optimally? We answer this question by deriving spiking dynamics and learning dynamics directly from a measure of network performance. We find that a network of integrate-and-fire neurons undergoing Hebbian plasticity can learn an optimal spike-based representation for a linear decoder. The learning rule acts to minimise the membrane potential magnitude, which can be interpreted as a representation error after learning. In this way, learning reduces the representation error and drives the network into a robust, balanced regime. The network becomes balanced because small representation errors correspond to small membrane potentials, which in turn results from a balance of excitation and inhibition. The representation is robust because neurons become self-correcting, only spiking if the representation error exceeds a threshold. Altogether, these results suggest that several observed features of cortical dynamics, such as excitatory-inhibitory balance, integrate-and-fire dynamics and Hebbian plasticity, are signatures of a robust, optimal spike-based code. A central question in neuroscience is to understand how populations of neurons represent information and how they learn to do so. Usually, learning and information representation are treated as two different functions. From the outset, this separation seems like a good idea, as it reduces the problem into two smaller, more manageable chunks. Our approach, however, is to study these together. This allows us to treat learning and information representation as two sides of a single mechanism, operating at two different timescales. Experimental work has given us several clues about the regime in which real networks operate in the brain. Some of the most prominent observations are: (a) high trial-to-trial variability—a neuron responds differently to repeated, identical inputs [1, 2]; (b) asynchronous firing at the network level—spike trains of different neurons are at most very weakly correlated [3, 4, 5]; (c) tight balance of excitation and inhibition—every excitatory input is met by an inhibitory input of equal or greater size [6, 7, 8] and (4) spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP)—the strength of synapses change as a function of presynaptic and postsynaptic spike times [9]. Previously, it has been shown that observations (a)–(c) can be understood as signatures of an optimal, spike-based code [10, 11]. The essential idea is to derive spiking dynamics from the assumption that neurons only fire if their spike improves information representation. Information in a network may ∗ Authors contributed equally 1 originate from several possible sources: external sensory input, external neural network input, or alternatively, it may originate within the network itself as a memory, or as a computation. Whatever the source, this initial assumption leads directly to the conclusion that a network of integrate-and-fire neurons can optimally represent a signal while exhibiting properties (a)–(c). A major problem with this framework is that network connectivity must be completely specified a priori, and requires the tuning of N 2 parameters, where N is the number of neurons in the network. Although this is feasible mathematically, it is unclear how a real network could tune itself into this optimal regime. In this work, we solve this problem using a simple synaptic learning rule. The key insight is that the plasticity rule can be derived from the same basic principle as the spiking rule in the earlier work—namely, that any change should improve information representation. Surprisingly, this can be achieved with a local, Hebbian learning rule, where synaptic plasticity is proportional to the product of presynaptic firing rates with post-synaptic membrane potentials. Spiking and synaptic plasticity then work hand in hand towards the same goal: the spiking of a neuron decreases the representation error on a fast time scale, thereby giving rise to the actual population representation; synaptic plasticity decreases the representation error on a slower time scale, thereby improving or maintaining the population representation. For a large set of initial connectivities and spiking dynamics, neural networks are driven into a balanced regime, where excitation and inhibition cancel each other and where spike trains are asynchronous and irregular. Furthermore, the learning rule that we derive reproduces the main features of STDP (property (d) above). In this way, a network can learn to represent information optimally, with synaptic, neural and network dynamics consistent with those observed experimentally. 1 Derivation of the learning rule for a single neuron We begin by deriving a learning rule for a single neuron with an autapse (a self-connection) (Fig. 1A). Our approach is to derive synaptic dynamics for the autapse and spiking dynamics for the neuron such that the neuron learns to optimally represent a time-varying input signal. We will derive a learning rule for networks of neurons later, after we have developed the fundamental concepts for the single neuron case. Our first step is to derive optimal spiking dynamics for the neuron, so that we have a target for our learning rule. We do this by making two simple assumptions [11]. First, we assume that the neuron can provide an estimate or read-out x(t) of a time-dependent signal x(t) by filtering its spike train ˆ o(t) as follows: ˙ x(t) = −ˆ(t) + Γo(t), ˆ x (1) where Γ is a fixed read-out weight, which we will refer to as the neuron’s “output kernel” and the spike train can be written as o(t) = i δ(t − ti ), where {ti } are the spike times. Next, we assume that the neuron only produces a spike if that spike improves the read-out, where we measure the read-out performance through a simple squared-error loss function: 2 L(t) = x(t) − x(t) . ˆ (2) With these two assumptions, we can now derive optimal spiking dynamics. First, we observe that if the neuron produces an additional spike at time t, the read-out increases by Γ, and the loss function becomes L(t|spike) = (x(t) − (x(t) + Γ))2 . This allows us to restate our spiking rule as follows: ˆ the neuron should only produce a spike if L(t|no spike) > L(t|spike), or (x(t) − x(t))2 > (x(t) − ˆ (x(t) + Γ))2 . Now, squaring both sides of this inequality, defining V (t) ≡ Γ(x(t) − x(t)) and ˆ ˆ defining T ≡ Γ2 /2 we find that the neuron should only spike if: V (t) > T. (3) We interpret V (t) to be the membrane potential of the neuron, and we interpret T as the spike threshold. This interpretation allows us to understand the membrane potential functionally: the voltage is proportional to a prediction error—the difference between the read-out x(t) and the actual ˆ signal x(t). A spike is an error reduction mechanism—the neuron only spikes if the error exceeds the spike threshold. This is a greedy minimisation, in that the neuron fires a spike whenever that action decreases L(t) without considering the future impact of that spike. Importantly, the neuron does not require direct access to the loss function L(t). 2 To determine the membrane potential dynamics, we take the derivative of the voltage, which gives ˙ ˙ us V = Γ(x − x). (Here, and in the following, we will drop the time index for notational brevity.) ˙ ˆ ˙ Now, using Eqn. (1) we obtain V = Γx − Γ(−x + Γo) = −Γ(x − x) + Γ(x + x) − Γ2 o, so that: ˙ ˆ ˆ ˙ ˙ V = −V + Γc − Γ2 o, (4) where c = x + x is the neural input. This corresponds exactly to the dynamics of a leaky integrate˙ and-fire neuron with an inhibitory autapse1 of strength Γ2 , and a feedforward connection strength Γ. The dynamics and connectivity guarantee that a neuron spikes at just the right times to optimise the loss function (Fig. 1B). In addition, it is especially robust to noise of different forms, because of its error-correcting nature. If x is constant in time, the voltage will rise up to the threshold T at which point a spike is fired, adding a delta function to the spike train o at time t, thereby producing a read-out x that is closer to x and causing an instantaneous drop in the voltage through the autapse, ˆ by an amount Γ2 = 2T , effectively resetting the voltage to V = −T . We now have a target for learning—we know the connection strength that a neuron must have at the end of learning if it is to represent information optimally, for a linear read-out. We can use this target to derive synaptic dynamics that can learn an optimal representation from experience. Specifically, we consider an integrate-and-fire neuron with some arbitrary autapse strength ω. The dynamics of this neuron are given by ˙ V = −V + Γc − ωo. (5) This neuron will not produce the correct spike train for representing x through a linear read-out (Eqn. (1)) unless ω = Γ2 . Our goal is to derive a dynamical equation for the synapse ω so that the spike train becomes optimal. We do this by quantifying the loss that we are incurring by using the suboptimal strength, and then deriving a learning rule that minimises this loss with respect to ω. The loss function underlying the spiking dynamics determined by Eqn. (5) can be found by reversing the previous membrane potential analysis. First, we integrate the differential equation for V , assuming that ω changes on time scales much slower than the membrane potential. We obtain the following (formal) solution: V = Γx − ω¯, o (6) ˙ where o is determined by o = −¯ + o. The solution to this latter equation is o = h ∗ o, a convolution ¯ ¯ o ¯ of the spike train with the exponential kernel h(τ ) = θ(τ ) exp(−τ ). As such, it is analogous to the instantaneous firing rate of the neuron. Now, using Eqn. (6), and rewriting the read-out as x = Γ¯, we obtain the loss incurred by the ˆ o sub-optimal neuron, L = (x − x)2 = ˆ 1 V 2 + 2(ω − Γ2 )¯ + (ω − Γ2 )2 o2 . o ¯ Γ2 (7) We observe that the last two terms of Eqn. (7) will vanish whenever ω = Γ2 , i.e., when the optimal reset has been found. We can therefore simplify the problem by defining an alternative loss function, 1 2 V , (8) 2 which has the same minimum as the original loss (V = 0 or x = x, compare Eqn. (2)), but yields a ˆ simpler learning algorithm. We can now calculate how changes to ω affect LV : LV = ∂LV ∂V ∂o ¯ =V = −V o − V ω ¯ . (9) ∂ω ∂ω ∂ω We can ignore the last term in this equation (as we will show below). Finally, using simple gradient descent, we obtain a simple Hebbian-like synaptic plasticity rule: τω = − ˙ ∂LV = V o, ¯ ∂ω (10) where τ is the learning time constant. 1 This contribution of the autapse can also be interpreted as the reset of an integrate-and-fire neuron. Later, when we generalise to networks of neurons, we shall employ this interpretation. 3 This synaptic learning rule is capable of learning the synaptic weight ω that minimises the difference between x and x (Fig. 1B). During learning, the synaptic weight changes in proportion to the postˆ synaptic voltage V and the pre-synaptic firing rate o (Fig. 1C). As such, this is a Hebbian learning ¯ rule. Of course, in this single neuron case, the pre-synaptic neuron and post-synaptic neuron are the same neuron. The synaptic weight gradually approaches its optimal value Γ2 . However, it never completely stabilises, because learning never stops as long as neurons are spiking. Instead, the synapse oscillates closely about the optimal value (Fig. 1D). This is also a “greedy” learning rule, similar to the spiking rule, in that it seeks to minimise the error at each instant in time, without regard for the future impact of those changes. To demonstrate that the second term in Eqn. (5) can be neglected we note that the equations for V , o, and ω define a system ¯ of coupled differential equations that can be solved analytically by integrating between spikes. This results in a simple recurrence relation for changes in ω from the ith to the (i + 1)th spike, ωi+1 = ωi + ωi (ωi − 2T ) . τ (T − Γc − ωi ) (11) This iterative equation has a single stable fixed point at ω = 2T = Γ2 , proving that the neuron’s autaptic weight or reset will approach the optimal solution. 2 Learning in a homogeneous network We now generalise our learning rule derivation to a network of N identical, homogeneously connected neurons. This generalisation is reasonably straightforward because many characteristics of the single neuron case are shared by a network of identical neurons. We will return to the more general case of heterogeneously connected neurons in the next section. We begin by deriving optimal spiking dynamics, as in the single neuron case. This provides a target for learning, which we can then use to derive synaptic dynamics. As before, we want our network to produce spikes that optimally represent a variable x for a linear read-out. We assume that the read-out x is provided by summing and filtering the spike trains of all the neurons in the network: ˆ ˙ x = −ˆ + Γo, ˆ x (12) 2 where the row vector Γ = (Γ, . . . , Γ) contains the read-out weights of the neurons and the column vector o = (o1 , . . . , oN ) their spike trains. Here, we have used identical read-out weights for each neuron, because this indirectly leads to homogeneous connectivity, as we will demonstrate. Next, we assume that a neuron only spikes if that spike reduces a loss-function. This spiking rule is similar to the single neuron spiking rule except that this time there is some ambiguity about which neuron should spike to represent a signal. Indeed, there are many different spike patterns that provide exactly the same estimate x. For example, one neuron could fire regularly at a high rate (exactly like ˆ our previous single neuron example) while all others are silent. To avoid this firing rate ambiguity, we use a modified loss function, that selects amongst all equivalent solutions, those with the smallest neural firing rates. We do this by adding a ‘metabolic cost’ term to our loss function, so that high firing rates are penalised: ¯ L = (x − x)2 + µ o 2 , ˆ (13) where µ is a small positive constant that controls the cost-accuracy trade-off, akin to a regularisation parameter. Each neuron in the optimal network will seek to reduce this loss function by firing a spike. Specifically, the ith neuron will spike whenever L(no spike in i) > L(spike in i). This leads to the following spiking rule for the ith neuron: Vi > Ti (14) where Vi ≡ Γ(x − x) − µoi and Ti ≡ Γ2 /2 + µ/2. We can naturally interpret Vi as the membrane ˆ potential of the ith neuron and Ti as the spiking threshold of that neuron. As before, we can now derive membrane potential dynamics: ˙ V = −V + ΓT c − (ΓT Γ + µI)o, 2 (15) The read-out weights must scale as Γ ∼ 1/N so that firing rates are not unrealistically small in large networks. We can see this by calculating the average firing rate N oi /N ≈ x/(ΓN ) ∼ O(N/N ) ∼ O(1). i=1 ¯ 4 where I is the identity matrix and ΓT Γ + µI is the network connectivity. We can interpret the selfconnection terms {Γ2 +µ} as voltage resets that decrease the voltage of any neuron that spikes. This optimal network is equivalent to a network of identical integrate-and-fire neurons with homogeneous inhibitory connectivity. The network has some interesting dynamical properties. The voltages of all the neurons are largely synchronous, all increasing to the spiking threshold at about the same time3 (Fig. 1F). Nonetheless, neural spiking is asynchronous. The first neuron to spike will reset itself by Γ2 + µ, and it will inhibit all the other neurons in the network by Γ2 . This mechanism prevents neurons from spik- x 3 The first neuron to spike will be random if there is some membrane potential noise. V (A) (B) x x ˆ x 10 1 0.1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 1 D 0.5 V V 0 ˆ x V ˆ x (C) 1 0 1 2 0 0.625 25 25.625 (D) start of learning 1 V 50 200.625 400 400.625 1 2.4 O 1.78 ω 1.77 25 neuron$ 0 1 2 !me$ 3 4 25 1 5 V 400.625 !me$ (F) 25 1 2.35 1.05 1.049 400 25.625 !me$ (E) neuron$ 100.625 200 end of learning 1.4 1.35 ω 100 !me$ 1 V 1 O 50.625 0 1 2 !me$ 3 4 5 V !me$ !me$ Figure 1: Learning in a single neuron and a homogeneous network. (A) A single neuron represents an input signal x by producing an output x. (B) During learning, the single neuron output x (solid red ˆ ˆ line, top panel) converges towards the input x (blue). Similarly, for a homogeneous network the output x (dashed red line, top panel) converges towards x. Connectivity also converges towards optimal ˆ connectivity in both the single neuron case (solid black line, middle panel) and the homogeneous net2 2 work case (dashed black line, middle panel), as quantified by D = maxi,j ( Ωij − Ωopt / Ωopt ) ij ij at each point in time. Consequently, the membrane potential reset (bottom panel) converges towards the optimal reset (green line, bottom panel). Spikes are indicated by blue vertical marks, and are produced when the membrane potential reaches threshold (bottom panel). Here, we have rescaled time, as indicated, for clarity. (C) Our learning rule dictates that the autapse ω in our single neuron (bottom panel) changes in proportion to the membrane potential (top panel) and the firing rate (middle panel). (D) At the end of learning, the reset ω fluctuates weakly about the optimal value. (E) For a homogeneous network, neurons spike regularly at the start of learning, as shown in this raster plot. Membrane potentials of different neurons are weakly correlated. (F) At the end of learning, spiking is very irregular and membrane potentials become more synchronous. 5 ing synchronously. The population as a whole acts similarly to the single neuron in our previous example. Each neuron fires regularly, even if a different neuron fires in every integration cycle. The design of this optimal network requires the tuning of N (N − 1) synaptic parameters. How can an arbitrary network of integrate-and-fire neurons learn this optimum? As before, we address this question by using the optimal network as a target for learning. We start with an arbitrarily connected network of integrate-and-fire neurons: ˙ V = −V + ΓT c − Ωo, (16) where Ω is a matrix of connectivity weights, which includes the resets of the individual neurons. Assuming that learning occurs on a slow time scale, we can rewrite this equation as V = ΓT x − Ω¯ . o (17) Now, repeating the arguments from the single neuron derivation, we modify the loss function to obtain an online learning rule. Specifically, we set LV = V 2 /2, and calculate the gradient: ∂LV = ∂Ωij Vk k ∂Vk =− ∂Ωij Vk δki oj − ¯ k Vk Ωkl kl ∂ ol ¯ . ∂Ωij (18) We can simplify this equation considerably by observing that the contribution of the second summation is largely averaged out under a wide variety of realistic conditions4 . Therefore, it can be neglected, and we obtain the following local learning rule: ∂LV ˙ = V i oj . ¯ τ Ωij = − ∂Ωij (19) This is a Hebbian plasticity rule, whereby connectivity changes in proportion to the presynaptic firing rate oj and post-synaptic membrane potential Vi . We assume that the neural thresholds are set ¯ to a constant T and that the neural resets are set to their optimal values −T . In the previous section we demonstrated that these resets can be obtained by a Hebbian plasticity rule (Eqn. (10)). This learning rule minimises the difference between the read-out and the signal, by approaching the optimal recurrent connection strengths for the network (Fig. 1B). As in the single neuron case, learning does not stop, so the connection strengths fluctuate close to their optimal value. During learning, network activity becomes progressively more asynchronous as it progresses towards optimal connectivity (Fig. 1E, F). 3 Learning in the general case Now that we have developed the fundamental concepts underlying our learning rule, we can derive a learning rule for the more general case of a network of N arbitrarily connected leaky integrateand-fire neurons. Our goal is to understand how such networks can learn to optimally represent a ˙ J-dimensional signal x = (x1 , . . . , xJ ), using the read-out equation x = −x + Γo. We consider a network with the following membrane potential dynamics: ˙ V = −V + ΓT c − Ωo, (20) where c is a J-dimensional input. We assume that this input is related to the signal according to ˙ c = x + x. This assumption can be relaxed by treating the input as the control for an arbitrary linear dynamical system, in which case the signal represented by the network is the output of such a computation [11]. However, this further generalisation is beyond the scope of this work. As before, we need to identify the optimal recurrent connectivity so that we have a target for learning. Most generally, the optimal recurrent connectivity is Ωopt ≡ ΓT Γ + µI. The output kernels of the individual neurons, Γi , are given by the rows of Γ, and their spiking thresholds by Ti ≡ Γi 2 /2 + 4 From the definition of the membrane potential we can see that Vk ∼ O(1/N ) because Γ ∼ 1/N . Therefore, the size of the first term in Eqn. (18) is k Vk δki oj = Vi oj ∼ O(1/N ). Therefore, the second term can ¯ ¯ be ignored if kl Vk Ωkl ∂ ol /∂Ωij ¯ O(1/N ). This happens if Ωkl O(1/N 2 ) as at the start of learning. It also happens towards the end of learning if the terms {Ωkl ∂ ol /∂Ωij } are weakly correlated with zero mean, ¯ or if the membrane potentials {Vi } are weakly correlated with zero mean. 6 µ/2. With these connections and thresholds, we find that a network of integrate-and-fire neurons ˆ ¯ will produce spike trains in such a way that the loss function L = x − x 2 + µ o 2 is minimised, ˆ where the read-out is given by x = Γ¯ . We can show this by prescribing a greedy5 spike rule: o a spike is fired by neuron i whenever L(no spike in i) > L(spike in i) [11]. The resulting spike generation rule is Vi > Ti , (21) ˆ where Vi ≡ ΓT (x − x) − µ¯i is interpreted as the membrane potential. o i 5 Despite being greedy, this spiking rule can generate firing rates that are practically identical to the optimal solutions: we checked this numerically in a large ensemble of networks with randomly chosen kernels. (A) x1 … x … 1 1 (B) xJJ x 10 L 10 T T 10 4 6 8 1 Viii V D ˆˆ ˆˆ x11 xJJ x x F 0.5 0 0.4 … … 0.2 0 0 2000 4000 !me (C) x V V 1 x 10 x 3 ˆ x 8 0 x 10 1 2 3 !me 4 5 4 0 1 4 0 1 8 V (F) Ρ(Δt) E-‐I input 0.4 ˆ x 0 3 0 1 x 10 1.3 0.95 x 10 ˆ x 4 V (E) 1 x 0 end of learning 50 neuron neuron 50 !me 2 0 ˆ x 0 0.5 ISI Δt 1 2 !me 4 5 4 1.5 1.32 3 2 0.1 Ρ(Δt) x E-‐I input (D) start of learning 0 2 !me 0 0 0.5 ISI Δt 1 Figure 2: Learning in a heterogeneous network. (A) A network of neurons represents an input ˆ signal x by producing an output x. (B) During learning, the loss L decreases (top panel). The difference between the connection strengths and the optimal strengths also decreases (middle panel), as 2 2 quantified by the mean difference (solid line), given by D = Ω − Ωopt / Ωopt and the maxi2 2 mum difference (dashed line), given by maxi,j ( Ωij − Ωopt / Ωopt ). The mean population firing ij ij rate (solid line, bottom panel) also converges towards the optimal firing rate (dashed line, bottom panel). (C, E) Before learning, a raster plot of population spiking shows that neurons produce bursts ˆ of spikes (upper panel). The network output x (red line, middle panel) fails to represent x (blue line, middle panel). The excitatory input (red, bottom left panel) and inhibitory input (green, bottom left panel) to a randomly selected neuron is not tightly balanced. Furthermore, a histogram of interspike intervals shows that spiking activity is not Poisson, as indicated by the red line that represents a best-fit exponential distribution. (D, F) At the end of learning, spiking activity is irregular and ˆ Poisson-like, excitatory and inhibitory input is tightly balanced and x matches x. 7 How can we learn this optimal connection matrix? As before, we can derive a learning rule by minimising the cost function LV = V 2 /2. This leads to a Hebbian learning rule with the same form as before: ˙ τ Ωij = Vi oj . ¯ (22) Again, we assume that the neural resets are given by −Ti . Furthermore, in order for this learning rule to work, we must assume that the network input explores all possible directions in the J-dimensional input space (since the kernels Γi can point in any of these directions). The learning performance does not critically depend on how the input variable space is sampled as long as the exploration is extensive. In our simulations, we randomly sample the input c from a Gaussian white noise distribution at every time step for the entire duration of the learning. We find that this learning rule decreases the loss function L, thereby approaching optimal network connectivity and producing optimal firing rates for our linear decoder (Fig. 2B). In this example, we have chosen connectivity that is initially much too weak at the start of learning. Consequently, the initial network behaviour is similar to a collection of unconnected single neurons that ignore each other. Spike trains are not Poisson-like, firing rates are excessively large, excitatory and inhibitory ˆ input is unbalanced and the decoded variable x is highly unreliable (Fig. 2C, E). As a result of learning, the network becomes tightly balanced and the spike trains become asynchronous, irregular and Poisson-like with much lower rates (Fig. 2D, F). However, despite this apparent variability, the population representation is extremely precise, only limited by the the metabolic cost and the discrete nature of a spike. This learnt representation is far more precise than a rate code with independent Poisson spike trains [11]. In particular, shuffling the spike trains in response to identical inputs drastically degrades this precision. 4 Conclusions and Discussion In population coding, large trial-to-trial spike train variability is usually interpreted as noise [2]. We show here that a deterministic network of leaky integrate-and-fire neurons with a simple Hebbian plasticity rule can self-organise into a regime where information is represented far more precisely than in noisy rate codes, while appearing to have noisy Poisson-like spiking dynamics. Our learning rule (Eqn. (22)) has the basic properties of STDP. Specifically, a presynaptic spike occurring immediately before a post-synaptic spike will potentiate a synapse, because membrane potentials are positive immediately before a postsynaptic spike. Furthermore, a presynaptic spike occurring immediately after a post-synaptic spike will depress a synapse, because membrane potentials are always negative immediately after a postsynaptic spike. This is similar in spirit to the STDP rule proposed in [12], but different to classical STDP, which depends on post-synaptic spike times [9]. This learning rule can also be understood as a mechanism for generating a tight balance between excitatory and inhibitory input. We can see this by observing that membrane potentials after learning can be interpreted as representation errors (projected onto the read-out kernels). Therefore, learning acts to minimise the magnitude of membrane potentials. Excitatory and inhibitory input must be balanced if membrane potentials are small, so we can equate balance with optimal information representation. Previous work has shown that the balanced regime produces (quasi-)chaotic network dynamics, thereby accounting for much observed cortical spike train variability [13, 14, 4]. Moreover, the STDP rule has been known to produce a balanced regime [16, 17]. Additionally, recent theoretical studies have suggested that the balanced regime plays an integral role in network computation [15, 13]. In this work, we have connected these mechanisms and functions, to conclude that learning this balance is equivalent to the development of an optimal spike-based population code, and that this learning can be achieved using a simple Hebbian learning rule. Acknowledgements We are grateful for generous funding from the Emmy-Noether grant of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (CKM) and the Chaire d’excellence of the Agence National de la Recherche (CKM, DB), as well as a James Mcdonnell Foundation Award (SD) and EU grants BACS FP6-IST-027140, BIND MECT-CT-20095-024831, and ERC FP7-PREDSPIKE (SD). 8 References [1] Tolhurst D, Movshon J, and Dean A (1982) The statistical reliability of signals in single neurons in cat and monkey visual cortex. Vision Res 23: 775–785. [2] Shadlen MN, Newsome WT (1998) The variable discharge of cortical neurons: implications for connectivity, computation, and information coding. J Neurosci 18(10): 3870–3896. [3] Zohary E, Newsome WT (1994) Correlated neuronal discharge rate and its implication for psychophysical performance. Nature 370: 140–143. [4] Renart A, de la Rocha J, Bartho P, Hollender L, Parga N, Reyes A, & Harris, KD (2010) The asynchronous state in cortical circuits. Science 327, 587–590. [5] Ecker AS, Berens P, Keliris GA, Bethge M, Logothetis NK, Tolias AS (2010) Decorrelated neuronal firing in cortical microcircuits. Science 327: 584–587. [6] Okun M, Lampl I (2008) Instantaneous correlation of excitation and inhibition during ongoing and sensory-evoked activities. Nat Neurosci 11, 535–537. [7] Shu Y, Hasenstaub A, McCormick DA (2003) Turning on and off recurrent balanced cortical activity. Nature 423, 288–293. [8] Gentet LJ, Avermann M, Matyas F, Staiger JF, Petersen CCH (2010) Membrane potential dynamics of GABAergic neurons in the barrel cortex of behaving mice. Neuron 65: 422–435. [9] Caporale N, Dan Y (2008) Spike-timing-dependent plasticity: a Hebbian learning rule. Annu Rev Neurosci 31: 25–46. [10] Boerlin M, Deneve S (2011) Spike-based population coding and working memory. PLoS Comput Biol 7, e1001080. [11] Boerlin M, Machens CK, Deneve S (2012) Predictive coding of dynamic variables in balanced spiking networks. under review. [12] Clopath C, B¨ sing L, Vasilaki E, Gerstner W (2010) Connectivity reflects coding: a model of u voltage-based STDP with homeostasis. Nat Neurosci 13(3): 344–352. [13] van Vreeswijk C, Sompolinsky H (1998) Chaotic balanced state in a model of cortical circuits. Neural Comput 10(6): 1321–1371. [14] Brunel N (2000) Dynamics of sparsely connected networks of excitatory and inhibitory neurons. J Comput Neurosci 8, 183–208. [15] Vogels TP, Rajan K, Abbott LF (2005) Neural network dynamics. Annu Rev Neurosci 28: 357–376. [16] Vogels TP, Sprekeler H, Zenke F, Clopath C, Gerstner W. (2011) Inhibitory plasticity balances excitation and inhibition in sensory pathways and memory networks. Science 334(6062):1569– 73. [17] Song S, Miller KD, Abbott LF (2000) Competitive Hebbian learning through spike-timingdependent synaptic plasticity. Nat Neurosci 3(9): 919–926. 9
4 0.19124298 23 nips-2012-A lattice filter model of the visual pathway
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
5 0.17182815 168 nips-2012-Kernel Latent SVM for Visual Recognition
Author: Weilong Yang, Yang Wang, Arash Vahdat, Greg Mori
Abstract: Latent SVMs (LSVMs) are a class of powerful tools that have been successfully applied to many applications in computer vision. However, a limitation of LSVMs is that they rely on linear models. For many computer vision tasks, linear models are suboptimal and nonlinear models learned with kernels typically perform much better. Therefore it is desirable to develop the kernel version of LSVM. In this paper, we propose kernel latent SVM (KLSVM) – a new learning framework that combines latent SVMs and kernel methods. We develop an iterative training algorithm to learn the model parameters. We demonstrate the effectiveness of KLSVM using three different applications in visual recognition. Our KLSVM formulation is very general and can be applied to solve a wide range of applications in computer vision and machine learning. 1
6 0.15815763 24 nips-2012-A mechanistic model of early sensory processing based on subtracting sparse representations
7 0.1572894 13 nips-2012-A Nonparametric Conjugate Prior Distribution for the Maximizing Argument of a Noisy Function
8 0.15463275 77 nips-2012-Complex Inference in Neural Circuits with Probabilistic Population Codes and Topic Models
9 0.14926581 138 nips-2012-Fully Bayesian inference for neural models with negative-binomial spiking
10 0.14870149 238 nips-2012-Neurally Plausible Reinforcement Learning of Working Memory Tasks
11 0.14101185 113 nips-2012-Efficient and direct estimation of a neural subunit model for sensory coding
12 0.13935928 94 nips-2012-Delay Compensation with Dynamical Synapses
13 0.13714467 121 nips-2012-Expectation Propagation in Gaussian Process Dynamical Systems
14 0.13257781 56 nips-2012-Bayesian active learning with localized priors for fast receptive field characterization
15 0.13144076 324 nips-2012-Stochastic Gradient Descent with Only One Projection
16 0.12944047 62 nips-2012-Burn-in, bias, and the rationality of anchoring
17 0.12944047 116 nips-2012-Emergence of Object-Selective Features in Unsupervised Feature Learning
18 0.12788592 80 nips-2012-Confusion-Based Online Learning and a Passive-Aggressive Scheme
19 0.12556431 158 nips-2012-ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks
20 0.12321198 224 nips-2012-Multi-scale Hyper-time Hardware Emulation of Human Motor Nervous System Based on Spiking Neurons using FPGA
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.243), (1, 0.049), (2, -0.159), (3, 0.338), (4, 0.024), (5, 0.222), (6, -0.008), (7, -0.052), (8, -0.034), (9, 0.054), (10, -0.017), (11, -0.075), (12, -0.006), (13, 0.037), (14, 0.018), (15, 0.03), (16, -0.029), (17, 0.054), (18, -0.035), (19, 0.123), (20, -0.024), (21, 0.014), (22, 0.032), (23, -0.035), (24, -0.046), (25, 0.031), (26, -0.063), (27, 0.04), (28, 0.137), (29, 0.034), (30, -0.142), (31, -0.037), (32, -0.016), (33, -0.03), (34, 0.095), (35, 0.011), (36, -0.054), (37, -0.092), (38, 0.051), (39, -0.01), (40, -0.032), (41, 0.032), (42, -0.09), (43, -0.042), (44, 0.012), (45, 0.043), (46, -0.058), (47, -0.02), (48, -0.02), (49, -0.007)]
simIndex simValue paperId paperTitle
same-paper 1 0.97296935 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
2 0.81271529 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.
3 0.77340895 23 nips-2012-A lattice filter model of the visual pathway
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
4 0.73891008 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
5 0.72576481 94 nips-2012-Delay Compensation with Dynamical Synapses
Author: Chi Fung, K. Wong, Si Wu
Abstract: Time delay is pervasive in neural information processing. To achieve real-time tracking, it is critical to compensate the transmission and processing delays in a neural system. In the present study we show that dynamical synapses with shortterm depression can enhance the mobility of a continuous attractor network to the extent that the system tracks time-varying stimuli in a timely manner. The state of the network can either track the instantaneous position of a moving stimulus perfectly (with zero-lag) or lead it with an effectively constant time, in agreement with experiments on the head-direction systems in rodents. The parameter regions for delayed, perfect and anticipative tracking correspond to network states that are static, ready-to-move and spontaneously moving, respectively, demonstrating the strong correlation between tracking performance and the intrinsic dynamics of the network. We also find that when the speed of the stimulus coincides with the natural speed of the network state, the delay becomes effectively independent of the stimulus amplitude.
6 0.69099945 114 nips-2012-Efficient coding provides a direct link between prior and likelihood in perceptual Bayesian inference
8 0.58936059 190 nips-2012-Learning optimal spike-based representations
9 0.58469588 238 nips-2012-Neurally Plausible Reinforcement Learning of Working Memory Tasks
10 0.56984013 77 nips-2012-Complex Inference in Neural Circuits with Probabilistic Population Codes and Topic Models
11 0.56399375 239 nips-2012-Neuronal Spike Generation Mechanism as an Oversampling, Noise-shaping A-to-D converter
12 0.55101305 152 nips-2012-Homeostatic plasticity in Bayesian spiking networks as Expectation Maximization with posterior constraints
13 0.53625768 56 nips-2012-Bayesian active learning with localized priors for fast receptive field characterization
14 0.53171194 341 nips-2012-The topographic unsupervised learning of natural sounds in the auditory cortex
15 0.51703048 322 nips-2012-Spiking and saturating dendrites differentially expand single neuron computation capacity
16 0.50977272 262 nips-2012-Optimal Neural Tuning Curves for Arbitrary Stimulus Distributions: Discrimax, Infomax and Minimum $L p$ Loss
17 0.508452 138 nips-2012-Fully Bayesian inference for neural models with negative-binomial spiking
18 0.49786413 365 nips-2012-Why MCA? Nonlinear sparse coding with spike-and-slab prior for neurally plausible image encoding
19 0.49242145 347 nips-2012-Towards a learning-theoretic analysis of spike-timing dependent plasticity
20 0.47348282 333 nips-2012-Synchronization can Control Regularization in Neural Systems via Correlated Noise Processes
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.025), (17, 0.025), (21, 0.387), (38, 0.119), (42, 0.02), (54, 0.012), (55, 0.025), (74, 0.051), (76, 0.099), (77, 0.015), (80, 0.087), (92, 0.041)]
simIndex simValue paperId paperTitle
same-paper 1 0.88753462 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
2 0.84939718 1 nips-2012-3D Object Detection and Viewpoint Estimation with a Deformable 3D Cuboid Model
Author: Sanja Fidler, Sven Dickinson, Raquel Urtasun
Abstract: This paper addresses the problem of category-level 3D object detection. Given a monocular image, our aim is to localize the objects in 3D by enclosing them with tight oriented 3D bounding boxes. We propose a novel approach that extends the well-acclaimed deformable part-based model [1] to reason in 3D. Our model represents an object class as a deformable 3D cuboid composed of faces and parts, which are both allowed to deform with respect to their anchors on the 3D box. We model the appearance of each face in fronto-parallel coordinates, thus effectively factoring out the appearance variation induced by viewpoint. Our model reasons about face visibility patters called aspects. We train the cuboid model jointly and discriminatively and share weights across all aspects to attain efficiency. Inference then entails sliding and rotating the box in 3D and scoring object hypotheses. While for inference we discretize the search space, the variables are continuous in our model. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in indoor and outdoor scenarios, and show that our approach significantly outperforms the stateof-the-art in both 2D [1] and 3D object detection [2]. 1
3 0.79400313 300 nips-2012-Scalable nonconvex inexact proximal splitting
Author: Suvrit Sra
Abstract: We study a class of large-scale, nonsmooth, and nonconvex optimization problems. In particular, we focus on nonconvex problems with composite objectives. This class includes the extensively studied class of convex composite objective problems as a subclass. To solve composite nonconvex problems we introduce a powerful new framework based on asymptotically nonvanishing errors, avoiding the common stronger assumption of vanishing errors. Within our new framework we derive both batch and incremental proximal splitting algorithms. To our knowledge, our work is first to develop and analyze incremental nonconvex proximalsplitting algorithms, even if we were to disregard the ability to handle nonvanishing errors. We illustrate one instance of our general framework by showing an application to large-scale nonsmooth matrix factorization. 1
4 0.76434594 60 nips-2012-Bayesian nonparametric models for ranked data
Author: Francois Caron, Yee W. Teh
Abstract: We develop a Bayesian nonparametric extension of the popular Plackett-Luce choice model that can handle an infinite number of choice items. Our framework is based on the theory of random atomic measures, with the prior specified by a gamma process. We derive a posterior characterization and a simple and effective Gibbs sampler for posterior simulation. We develop a time-varying extension of our model, and apply it to the New York Times lists of weekly bestselling books. 1
5 0.74027497 105 nips-2012-Dynamic Pruning of Factor Graphs for Maximum Marginal Prediction
Author: Christoph H. Lampert
Abstract: We study the problem of maximum marginal prediction (MMP) in probabilistic graphical models, a task that occurs, for example, as the Bayes optimal decision rule under a Hamming loss. MMP is typically performed as a two-stage procedure: one estimates each variable’s marginal probability and then forms a prediction from the states of maximal probability. In this work we propose a simple yet effective technique for accelerating MMP when inference is sampling-based: instead of the above two-stage procedure we directly estimate the posterior probability of each decision variable. This allows us to identify the point of time when we are sufficiently certain about any individual decision. Whenever this is the case, we dynamically prune the variables we are confident about from the underlying factor graph. Consequently, at any time only samples of variables whose decision is still uncertain need to be created. Experiments in two prototypical scenarios, multi-label classification and image inpainting, show that adaptive sampling can drastically accelerate MMP without sacrificing prediction accuracy. 1
6 0.70513117 302 nips-2012-Scaling MPE Inference for Constrained Continuous Markov Random Fields with Consensus Optimization
7 0.70085657 123 nips-2012-Exponential Concentration for Mutual Information Estimation with Application to Forests
8 0.6439395 23 nips-2012-A lattice filter model of the visual pathway
9 0.63403058 18 nips-2012-A Simple and Practical Algorithm for Differentially Private Data Release
10 0.62083566 113 nips-2012-Efficient and direct estimation of a neural subunit model for sensory coding
11 0.60684311 190 nips-2012-Learning optimal spike-based representations
12 0.58976948 94 nips-2012-Delay Compensation with Dynamical Synapses
13 0.58139032 114 nips-2012-Efficient coding provides a direct link between prior and likelihood in perceptual Bayesian inference
14 0.57495087 112 nips-2012-Efficient Spike-Coding with Multiplicative Adaptation in a Spike Response Model
15 0.5739578 24 nips-2012-A mechanistic model of early sensory processing based on subtracting sparse representations
16 0.56632769 152 nips-2012-Homeostatic plasticity in Bayesian spiking networks as Expectation Maximization with posterior constraints
17 0.56067955 120 nips-2012-Exact and Stable Recovery of Sequences of Signals with Sparse Increments via Differential 1-Minimization
18 0.55844223 341 nips-2012-The topographic unsupervised learning of natural sounds in the auditory cortex
19 0.55813795 137 nips-2012-From Deformations to Parts: Motion-based Segmentation of 3D Objects
20 0.5506261 239 nips-2012-Neuronal Spike Generation Mechanism as an Oversampling, Noise-shaping A-to-D converter