Competition improves robustness against loss of information

A substantial number of works have aimed at modeling the receptive field properties of the primary visual cortex (V1). Their evaluation criterion is usually the similarity of the model response properties to the recorded responses from biological organisms. However, as several algorithms were able to demonstrate some degree of similarity to biological data based on the existing criteria, we focus on the robustness against loss of information in the form of occlusions as an additional constraint for better understanding the algorithmic level of early vision in the brain. We try to investigate the influence of competition mechanisms on the robustness. Therefore, we compared four methods employing different competition mechanisms, namely, independent component analysis, non-negative matrix factorization with sparseness constraint, predictive coding/biased competition, and a Hebbian neural network with lateral inhibitory connections. Each of those methods is known to be capable of developing receptive fields comparable to those of V1 simple-cells. Since measuring the robustness of methods having simple-cell like receptive fields against occlusion is difficult, we measure the robustness using the classification accuracy on the MNIST hand written digit dataset. For this we trained all methods on the training set of the MNIST hand written digits dataset and tested them on a MNIST test set with different levels of occlusions. We observe that methods which employ competitive mechanisms have higher robustness against loss of information. Also the kind of the competition mechanisms plays an important role in robustness. Global feedback inhibition as employed in predictive coding/biased competition has an advantage compared to local lateral inhibition learned by an anti-Hebb rule.

[1]  Martin Rehn,et al.  A network that uses few active neurones to code visual input predicts the diverse shapes of cortical receptive fields , 2007, Journal of Computational Neuroscience.

[2]  D. Chakrabarti,et al.  A fast fixed - point algorithm for independent component analysis , 1997 .

[3]  Michael W. Spratling Learning Image Components for Object Recognition , 2006, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[4]  P O Hoyer,et al.  Independent component analysis applied to feature extraction from colour and stereo images , 2000, Network.

[5]  D. Ringach Spatial structure and symmetry of simple-cell receptive fields in macaque primary visual cortex. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.

[6]  S. Nelson,et al.  Homeostatic plasticity in the developing nervous system , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[7]  P. Földiák,et al.  Forming sparse representations by local anti-Hebbian learning , 1990, Biological Cybernetics.

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

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

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

[11]  Seungjin Choi,et al.  Independent Component Analysis , 2009, Handbook of Natural Computing.

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

[13]  E. Oja Simplified neuron model as a principal component analyzer , 1982, Journal of mathematical biology.

[14]  Michael Robert DeWeese,et al.  A Sparse Coding Model with Synaptically Local Plasticity and Spiking Neurons Can Account for the Diverse Shapes of V1 Simple Cell Receptive Fields , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[15]  David J. Field,et al.  Sparse coding with an overcomplete basis set: A strategy employed by V1? , 1997, Vision Research.

[16]  Fred H Hamker,et al.  Efficient coding correlates with spatial frequency tuning in a model of V1 receptive field organization , 2009, Visual Neuroscience.

[17]  Michael S. Falconbridge,et al.  A Simple Hebbian/Anti-Hebbian Network Learns the Sparse, Independent Components of Natural Images , 2006, Neural Computation.

[18]  Fred H Hamker,et al.  Efficient coding correlates with spatial frequency tuning in a model of V1 receptive field organization , 2009, BMC Neuroscience.

[19]  David D. Cox,et al.  Untangling invariant object recognition , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[20]  Michael W. Spratling,et al.  Unsupervised Learning of Overlapping Image Components Using Divisive Input Modulation , 2009, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[21]  Raul Kompass,et al.  A Generalized Divergence Measure for Nonnegative Matrix Factorization , 2007, Neural Computation.

[22]  Patrik O. Hoyer,et al.  Non-negative Matrix Factorization with Sparseness Constraints , 2004, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[23]  H. Sebastian Seung,et al.  Learning the parts of objects by non-negative matrix factorization , 1999, Nature.

[24]  David J. Jilk,et al.  Recurrent Processing during Object Recognition , 2011, Front. Psychol..

[25]  J. V. van Hateren,et al.  Independent component filters of natural images compared with simple cells in primary visual cortex , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[26]  Michael W. Spratling Predictive Coding as a Model of Response Properties in Cortical Area V1 , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[27]  Fred Henrik Hamker,et al.  Learning Invariance from Natural Images Inspired by Observations in the Primary Visual Cortex , 2012, Neural Computation.