Investigation into Sub-Receptive Fields of Retinal Ganglion Cells with Natural Images

Determining the receptive field of a retinal ganglion cell is critically important when formulating a computational model that maps the relationship between the stimulus and response. This process is traditionally undertaken using reverse correlation to estimate the receptive field. By stimulating the retina with artificial stimuli, such as alternating checkerboards, bars or gratings and recording the neural response it is possible to estimate the cell’s receptive field by analysing the stimuli that produced the response. Artificial stimuli such as white noise is known to not stimulate the full range of the cell’s responses. By using natural image stimuli, it is possible to estimate the receptive field and obtain a resulting model that more accurately mimics the cells’ responses to natural stimuli. This paper extends on previous work to seek further improvements in estimating a ganglion cell’s receptive field by considering that the receptive field can be divided into subunits. It is thought that these subunits may relate to receptive fields which are associated with bipolar retinal cells. The findings of this preliminary study show that by using subunits to define the receptive field we achieve a significant improvement over existing approaches when deriving computational models of the cell’s response.

[1]  David J. C. MacKay,et al.  A Practical Bayesian Framework for Backpropagation Networks , 1992, Neural Computation.

[2]  Hiroki Asari,et al.  The Projective Field of Retinal Bipolar Cells and Its Modulation by Visual Context , 2014, Neuron.

[3]  Curtis L Baker,et al.  Natural versus Synthetic Stimuli for Estimating Receptive Field Models: A Comparison of Predictive Robustness , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[4]  Sonya Coleman,et al.  Modelling and Analysis of Retinal Ganglion Cells with Neural Networks , 2014 .

[5]  Scott McDonald,et al.  Modelling retinal ganglion cells using self-organising fuzzy neural networks , 2015, 2015 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN).

[6]  Tim Gollisch,et al.  Rapid Neural Coding in the Retina with Relative Spike Latencies , 2008, Science.

[7]  Mehdi Khashei,et al.  A novel hybridization of artificial neural networks and ARIMA models for time series forecasting , 2011, Appl. Soft Comput..

[8]  Sonya Coleman,et al.  Temporal Coding Model of Spiking Output for Retinal Ganglion Cells , 2016 .

[9]  T. Martin McGinnity,et al.  A biologically inspired spiking model of visual processing for image feature detection , 2015, Neurocomputing.

[10]  Martin T. Hagan,et al.  Gauss-Newton approximation to Bayesian learning , 1997, Proceedings of International Conference on Neural Networks (ICNN'97).

[11]  Jian K. Liu,et al.  Spike-Triggered Covariance Analysis Reveals Phenomenological Diversity of Contrast Adaptation in the Retina , 2015, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[12]  Christopher L Passaglia,et al.  Spatial receptive field properties of rat retinal ganglion cells , 2011, Visual Neuroscience.

[13]  Sonya Coleman,et al.  Refining Receptive Field Estimates using Natural Images for Retinal Ganglion Cells , 2016 .

[14]  T. Gollisch Estimating receptive fields in the presence of spike-time jitter , 2006, Network.

[15]  J. Touryan,et al.  Spatial Structure of Complex Cell Receptive Fields Measured with Natural Images , 2005, Neuron.

[16]  T. Martin McGinnity,et al.  Modelling of a retinal ganglion cell with simple spiking models , 2015, 2015 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN).

[17]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Spatio-temporal correlations and visual signalling in a complete neuronal population , 2008, Nature.

[18]  E J Chichilnisky,et al.  A simple white noise analysis of neuronal light responses , 2001, Network.

[19]  Norberto M. Grzywacz,et al.  Adaptation of Retinal Ganglion Cells to Natural-image Contrast , 2009 .

[20]  F. Burden,et al.  Robust QSAR models using Bayesian regularized neural networks. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[21]  Stephen A. Baccus,et al.  Segregation of object and background motion in the retina , 2003, Nature.

[22]  Joaquín Rapela,et al.  Estimating nonlinear receptive fields from natural images. , 2006, Journal of vision.

[23]  Corinna Cortes,et al.  Support-Vector Networks , 1995, Machine Learning.

[24]  Konrad Paul Kording,et al.  Processing of complex stimuli and natural scenes in the visual cortex , 2004, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[25]  N. Altman An Introduction to Kernel and Nearest-Neighbor Nonparametric Regression , 1992 .

[26]  Tim Gollisch,et al.  Closed-Loop Measurements of Iso-Response Stimuli Reveal Dynamic Nonlinear Stimulus Integration in the Retina , 2012, Neuron.

[27]  Simon Haykin,et al.  Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation , 1998 .

[28]  Martin D. Levine,et al.  Visual information processing in primate cone pathways. I. A model , 1996, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B.

[29]  Dario L. Ringach,et al.  Reverse correlation in neurophysiology , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[30]  W. Freiwald,et al.  Whole-agent selectivity within the macaque face-processing system , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[31]  Fred Rieke,et al.  The spatial structure of a nonlinear receptive field , 2012, Nature Neuroscience.

[32]  Sonya Coleman,et al.  Modelling Retinal Ganglion Cells Stimulated with Static Natural Images , 2016 .