Computational models of visual processing: a discussion of normalization and predictive coding using Marr's three levels of analysis

Our percept is the result of processing visual information by our visual system. This system contains many billions of neurons and a manyfold of connections between these neurons. In order to understand a complex system like our visual system, it has been proposed to approach it at different levels of analysis. This proposal distinguishes three levels: the first level describes the computational goal of the system, the second level the algorithms the system uses to achieve this goal, and the third level describes the way in which these algorithms are physically implemented in the brain. Focusing mainly on the first two levels of analysis, this review describes two computational models: the normalization model and the predictive coding model. This discussion shows that, despite little is known about the biological mechanisms underlying the models, the behavior of the visual system can be very well understood when computational models at the remaining two levels of analysis are applied to its behavior. Furthermore, this discussion shows that the models' algorithms may supplement one another at certain stages of visual processing. Finally, this review may provide support for a relation between predictive coding and normalization models. Several implications of this possible relation are discussed.

[1]  J. Bullier,et al.  Reaching beyond the classical receptive field of V1 neurons: horizontal or feedback axons? , 2003, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[2]  M. Carandini,et al.  Normalization as a canonical neural computation , 2011, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[3]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  Probabilistic Models of the Brain: Perception and Neural Function , 2002 .

[4]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  Bayesian inference and attentional modulation in the visual cortex , 2005, Neuroreport.

[5]  József Fiser,et al.  Spontaneous Cortical Activity Reveals Hallmarks of an Optimal Internal Model of the Environment , 2011, Science.

[6]  Karl J. Friston.  The free-energy principle: a rough guide to the brain? , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[7]  Joseph J Atick,et al.  Could information theory provide an ecological theory of sensory processing? , 2011, Network.

[8]  Dana H. Ballard,et al.  Predictive Feedback Can Account for Biphasic Responses in the Lateral Geniculate Nucleus , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[9]  R. Normann,et al.  The effects of background illumination on the photoresponses of red and green cones. , 1979, The Journal of physiology.

[10]  R C Reid,et al.  Efficient Coding of Natural Scenes in the Lateral Geniculate Nucleus: Experimental Test of a Computational Theory , 1996, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[11]  Michael J. Berry,et al.  Adaptation of retinal processing to image contrast and spatial scale , 1997, Nature.

[12]  Janneke F. M. Jehee,et al.  Attention Reverses the Effect of Prediction in Silencing Sensory Signals , 2011, Cerebral cortex.

[13]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Natural signal statistics and sensory gain control , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[14]  M. Meister,et al.  Fast and Slow Contrast Adaptation in Retinal Circuitry , 2002, Neuron.

[15]  R. Freeman,et al.  Orientation selectivity in the cat's striate cortex is invariant with stimulus contrast , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[16]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Evidence for a hierarchy of predictions and prediction errors in human cortex , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  D J Field,et al.  Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response properties of cortical cells. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[18]  R. Dolan,et al.  Knowing how much you don't know: a neural organization of uncertainty estimates , 2012, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[19]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Dynamic Causal Modeling of the Response to Frequency Deviants , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[20]  Nicholas J. Priebe,et al.  The Emergence of Contrast-Invariant Orientation Tuning in Simple Cells of Cat Visual Cortex , 2007, Neuron.

[21]  Tai Sing Lee,et al.  Hierarchical Bayesian inference in the visual cortex. , 2003, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[22]  J. Movshon,et al.  Linearity and Normalization in Simple Cells of the Macaque Primary Visual Cortex , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[23]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Canonical Microcircuits for Predictive Coding , 2012, Neuron.

[24]  S. Treue,et al.  Attentional Modulation Strength in Cortical Area MT Depends on Stimulus Contrast , 2002, Neuron.

[25]  R. M. Boynton,et al.  Visual Adaptation in Monkey Cones: Recordings of Late Receptor Potentials , 1970, Science.

[26]  Joseph J. Atick,et al.  Towards a Theory of Early Visual Processing , 1990, Neural Computation.

[27]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  The Helmholtz Machine , 1995, Neural Computation.

[28]  F. Rieke,et al.  Light adaptation in cone vision involves switching between receptor and post-receptor sites , 2007, Nature.

[29]  Wei Ji Ma,et al.  Bayesian inference with probabilistic population codes , 2006, Nature Neuroscience.

[30]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Extra-classical receptive field effects measured in striate cortex with fMRI , 2007, NeuroImage.

[31]  S. Laughlin,et al.  Predictive coding: a fresh view of inhibition in the retina , 1982, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[32]  Fred Rieke,et al.  Review the Challenges Natural Images Pose for Visual Adaptation , 2022 .

[33]  Victor A. F. Lamme.  The neurophysiology of figure-ground segregation in primary visual cortex , 1995, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[34]  Dana H. Ballard,et al.  Learning receptive fields using predictive feedback , 2006, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[35]  Carrie J. McAdams,et al.  Effects of Attention on Orientation-Tuning Functions of Single Neurons in Macaque Cortical Area V4 , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[36]  David J. Field,et al.  Emergence of simple-cell receptive field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images , 1996, Nature.

[37]  M. Carandini,et al.  The Suppressive Field of Neurons in Lateral Geniculate Nucleus , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[38]  D. Knill,et al.  The Bayesian brain: the role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation , 2004, Trends in Neurosciences.

[39]  Karl J. Friston.  The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? , 2010, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[40]  L. Chalupa,et al.  The visual neurosciences , 2004 .

[41]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  A model of neuronal responses in visual area MT , 1998, Vision Research.

[42]  D. Heeger.  Normalization of cell responses in cat striate cortex , 1992, Visual Neuroscience.

[43]  Joseph J. Atick,et al.  What Does the Retina Know about Natural Scenes? , 1992, Neural Computation.

[44]  Tomaso Poggio,et al.  From Understanding Computation to Understanding Neural Circuitry , 1976 .

[45]  F. Attneave.  Some informational aspects of visual perception. , 1954, Psychological review.

[46]  Jim M. Monti,et al.  Neural repetition suppression reflects fulfilled perceptual expectations , 2008, Nature Neuroscience.

[47]  G. DeAngelis,et al.  A Normalization Model of Multisensory Integration , 2011, Nature Neuroscience.

[48]  A. Borst.  Seeing smells: imaging olfactory learning in bees , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[49]  M. Meister,et al.  Dynamic predictive coding by the retina , 2005, Nature.

[50]  A. Kohn.  Visual adaptation: physiology, mechanisms, and functional benefits. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[51]  Nicole C. Rust,et al.  Do We Know What the Early Visual System Does? , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[52]  Stefan Treue,et al.  Feature-based attention influences motion processing gain in macaque visual cortex , 1999, Nature.

[53]  A. B. Bonds.  Role of Inhibition in the Specification of Orientation Selectivity of Cells in the Cat Striate Cortex , 1989, Visual Neuroscience.