How are complex cell properties adapted to the statistics of natural stimuli?

Sensory areas should be adapted to the properties of their natural stimuli. What are the underlying rules that match the properties of complex cells in primary visual cortex to their natural stimuli? To address this issue, we sampled movies from a camera carried by a freely moving cat, capturing the dynamics of image motion as the animal explores an outdoor environment. We use these movie sequences as input to simulated neurons. Following the intuition that many meaningful high-level variables, e.g., identities of visible objects, do not change rapidly in natural visual stimuli, we adapt the neurons to exhibit firing rates that are stable over time. We find that simulated neurons, which have optimally stable activity, display many properties that are observed for cortical complex cells. Their response is invariant with respect to stimulus translation and reversal of contrast polarity. Furthermore, spatial frequency selectivity and the aspect ratio of the receptive field quantitatively match the experimentally observed characteristics of complex cells. Hence, the population of complex cells in the primary visual cortex can be described as forming an optimally stable representation of natural stimuli.

[1]  D. Hubel,et al.  Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex , 1962, The Journal of physiology.

[2]  P. Schiller,et al.  Quantitative studies of single-cell properties in monkey striate cortex. III. Spatial frequency. , 1976, Journal of neurophysiology.

[3]  P. Schiller,et al.  Quantitative studies of single-cell properties in monkey striate cortex. I. Spatiotemporal organization of receptive fields. , 1976, Journal of neurophysiology.

[4]  P. Schiller,et al.  Quantitative studies of single-cell properties in monkey striate cortex. II. Orientation specificity and ocular dominance. , 1976, Journal of neurophysiology.

[5]  J. Movshon,et al.  Receptive field organization of complex cells in the cat's striate cortex. , 1978, The Journal of physiology.

[6]  John S. Edwards,et al.  The Hedonistic Neuron: A Theory of Memory, Learning and Intelligence , 1983 .

[7]  E H Adelson,et al.  Spatiotemporal energy models for the perception of motion. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[8]  R. L. de Valois,et al.  Relationship between spatial-frequency and orientation tuning of striate-cortex cells. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[9]  H. Spitzer,et al.  Simple- and complex-cell response dependences on stimulation parameters. , 1985, Journal of neurophysiology.

[10]  H. Spitzer,et al.  Complex-cell receptive field models , 1988, Progress in Neurobiology.

[11]  Peter Földiák,et al.  Learning Invariance from Transformation Sequences , 1991, Neural Comput..

[12]  A. B. Bonds,et al.  Classifying simple and complex cells on the basis of response modulation , 1991, Vision Research.

[13]  D. Heeger Half-squaring in responses of cat striate cells , 1992, Visual Neuroscience.

[14]  C. Fyfe,et al.  Finding compact and sparse-distributed representations of visual images , 1995 .

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

[16]  L. Abbott,et al.  Responses of neurons in primary and inferior temporal visual cortices to natural scenes , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[17]  J. Hertz,et al.  Insensitivity of V1 complex cell responses to small shifts in the retinal image of complex patterns. , 1997, Journal of neurophysiology.

[18]  I. Ohzawa,et al.  Encoding of binocular disparity by complex cells in the cat's visual cortex. , 1996, Journal of neurophysiology.

[19]  E. Rolls,et al.  INVARIANT FACE AND OBJECT RECOGNITION IN THE VISUAL SYSTEM , 1997, Progress in Neurobiology.

[20]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  The “independent components” of natural scenes are edge filters , 1997, Vision Research.

[21]  J. H. Hateren,et al.  Independent component filters of natural images compared with simple cells in primary visual cortex , 1998 .

[22]  Suzanna Becker,et al.  Implicit Learning in 3D Object Recognition: The Importance of Temporal Context , 1999, Neural Computation.

[23]  James V. Stone,et al.  Temporal Constraints on Visual Learning: A Computational Model , 1999, Perception.

[24]  Frances S. Chance,et al.  Complex cells as cortically amplified simple cells , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[25]  J L Gallant,et al.  Sparse coding and decorrelation in primary visual cortex during natural vision. , 2000, Science.

[26]  Aapo Hyvärinen,et al.  Emergence of Phase- and Shift-Invariant Features by Decomposition of Natural Images into Independent Feature Subspaces , 2000, Neural Computation.

[27]  Konrad P. Körding,et al.  Extracting Slow Subspaces from Natural Videos Leads to Complex Cells , 2001, ICANN.

[28]  Christoph Kayser,et al.  Learning the invariance properties of complex cells from their responses to natural stimuli , 2002, The European journal of neuroscience.

[29]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  Slow Feature Analysis: Unsupervised Learning of Invariances , 2002, Neural Computation.

[30]  Aapo Hyvärinen,et al.  Simple-Cell-Like Receptive Fields Maximize Temporal Coherence in Natural Video , 2003, Neural Computation.

[31]  Christoph Kayser,et al.  Temporal Correlations of Orientations in Natural Scenes , 2002, Neurocomputing.

[32]  Kunihiko Fukushima,et al.  Neocognitron: A self-organizing neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position , 1980, Biological Cybernetics.