Efficient Coding in Visual Working Memory Accounts for Stimulus-Specific Variations in Recall

Recall of visual features from working memory varies in both bias and precision depending on stimulus parameters. Whereas a number of models can approximate the average distribution of recall error across target stimuli, attempts to model how error varies with the choice of target have been ad hoc. Here we adapt a neural model of working memory to provide a principled account of these stimulus-specific effects, by allowing each neuron's tuning function to vary according to the principle of efficient coding, which states that neural responses should be optimized with respect to the frequency of stimuli in nature. For orientation, this means incorporating a prior that favors cardinal over oblique orientations. While continuing to capture the changes in error distribution with set size, the resulting model accurately described stimulus-specific variations as well, better than a slot-based competitor. Efficient coding produces a repulsive bias away from cardinal orientations, a bias that ought to be sensitive to changes in the environmental statistics. We subsequently tested whether shifts in the stimulus distribution influenced response bias to uniformly sampled target orientations in human subjects (of either sex). Across adaptation blocks, we manipulated the distribution of nontarget items by sampling from a bimodal congruent (incongruent) distribution with peaks centered on cardinal (oblique) orientations. Preadaptation responses were repulsed away from the cardinal axes. However, exposure to the incongruent distribution produced systematic decreases in repulsion that persisted after adaptation. This result confirms the role of prior expectation in generating stimulus-specific effects and validates the neural framework. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Theories of neural coding have been used successfully to explain how errors in recall from working memory depend on the number of items stored. However, recall of visual features also shows stimulus-specific variation in bias and precision. Here we unify two previously unconnected theories, the neural resource model of working memory and the efficient coding framework, to provide a principled account of these stimulus-specific effects. Given the importance of working memory limitations to multiple aspects of human and animal behavior, and the recent high-profile advances in theories of efficient coding, our modeling framework provides a richer, yet parsimonious, description of how orientation encoding influences visual working memory performance.

[1]  Evie Vergauwe,et al.  Categorical Working Memory Representations Are Used in Delayed Estimation of Continuous Colors , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  Wei Ji Ma,et al.  Variability in encoding precision accounts for visual short-term memory limitations , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  K. Gegenfurtner,et al.  Cortical mechanisms of colour vision , 2003, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[4]  R. Zemel,et al.  Inference and computation with population codes. , 2003, Annual review of neuroscience.

[5]  K. Gegenfurtner,et al.  Is there a lateralized category effect for color? , 2011, Journal of vision.

[6]  Owen J. Sansom,et al.  Autophagic targeting of Src promotes cancer cell survival following reduced FAK signalling , 2011, Nature Cell Biology.

[7]  Xue-Xin Wei,et al.  A Bayesian observer model constrained by efficient coding can explain 'anti-Bayesian' percepts , 2015, Nature Neuroscience.

[8]  W. Ma,et al.  Factorial comparison of working memory models. , 2014, Psychological review.

[9]  W. Ma,et al.  A detection theory account of change detection. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[10]  Sebastian Schneegans,et al.  Neural Architecture for Feature Binding in Visual Working Memory , 2017, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[11]  Paul M Bays,et al.  Dynamic Shifts of Limited Working Memory Resources in Human Vision , 2008, Science.

[12]  Jonathan I. Flombaum,et al.  Stimulus-specific variability in color working memory with delayed estimation. , 2014, Journal of vision.

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

[14]  Frank Tong,et al.  Accounting for Stimulus-Specific Variation in Precision Reveals a Discrete Capacity Limit in Visual Working Memory , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  Paul M Bays,et al.  Drift in Neural Population Activity Causes Working Memory to Deteriorate Over Time , 2018, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[16]  M. Ernst,et al.  Experience can change the 'light-from-above' prior , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

[17]  Joshua A. Solomon,et al.  Orientation uncertainty reduces perceived obliquity , 2010, Vision Research.

[18]  P. Bays Spikes not slots: noise in neural populations limits working memory , 2015, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[19]  S. Luck,et al.  Discrete fixed-resolution representations in visual working memory , 2008, Nature.

[20]  Xiao-Jing Wang,et al.  From Distributed Resources to Limited Slots in Multiple-Item Working Memory: A Spiking Network Model with Normalization , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[21]  C. Furmanski,et al.  An oblique effect in human primary visual cortex , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[22]  A. Stocker,et al.  Lawful relation between perceptual bias and discriminability , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[23]  Konrad Paul Kording,et al.  Learning Priors for Bayesian Computations in the Nervous System , 2010, PloS one.

[24]  A. R. Rao,et al.  Statistics of natural scenes and cortical color processing. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[25]  Aaron R. Seitz,et al.  Rapidly learned stimulus expectations alter perception of motion. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[26]  P. Lennie,et al.  Rapid adaptation in visual cortex to the structure of images. , 1999, Science.

[27]  Christian J. Kellner,et al.  A distributed code for color in natural scenes derived from center-surround filtered cone signals , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[28]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Efficient Sensory Encoding and Bayesian Inference with Heterogeneous Neural Populations , 2014, Neural Computation.

[29]  Paul M Bays,et al.  The precision of visual working memory is set by allocation of a shared resource. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[30]  Adam Binch,et al.  Perception as Bayesian Inference , 2014 .

[31]  Konrad Paul Kording,et al.  Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning , 2004, Nature.

[32]  Brent Doiron,et al.  Optimizing Working Memory with Heterogeneity of Recurrent Cortical Excitation , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[33]  Karen R Dobkins,et al.  The face inversion effect in infants is driven by high, and not low, spatial frequencies. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[34]  Sebastian Schneegans,et al.  No fixed item limit in visuospatial working memory , 2016, Cortex.

[35]  Paul M Bays,et al.  Noise in Neural Populations Accounts for Errors in Working Memory , 2014, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[36]  George A. Alvarez,et al.  Variability in the quality of visual working memory , 2012, Nature Communications.

[37]  Edward A. Essock,et al.  Influence of scale and orientation on the visual perception of natural scenes , 2005 .

[38]  Paul M Bays,et al.  Evaluating and excluding swap errors in analogue tests of working memory , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[39]  D. Heeger,et al.  Categorical Clustering of the Neural Representation of Color , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[40]  Yoram Burak,et al.  Fundamental limits on persistent activity in networks of noisy neurons , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[41]  Robert Taylor,et al.  A neural model of retrospective attention in visual working memory , 2018, Cognitive Psychology.

[42]  Klaus Oberauer,et al.  An Interference Model of Visual Working Memory , 2017, Psychological review.

[43]  Sid Kouider,et al.  An oblique illusion modulated by visibility: non-monotonic sensory integration in orientation processing. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[44]  H. B. Barlow,et al.  Possible Principles Underlying the Transformations of Sensory Messages , 2012 .

[45]  Tal Makovski,et al.  The visual attractor illusion. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[46]  J. Palmer Attentional limits on the perception and memory of visual information. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[47]  J. Movshon,et al.  Adaptation changes the direction tuning of macaque MT neurons , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

[48]  S. Appelle Perception and discrimination as a function of stimulus orientation: the "oblique effect" in man and animals. , 1972, Psychological bulletin.

[49]  Amy Perfors,et al.  Not every credible interval is credible: Evaluating robustness in the presence of contamination in Bayesian data analysis , 2017, Behavior research methods.

[50]  Edward K. Vogel,et al.  The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions , 1997, Nature.

[51]  Hideyuki Suzuki,et al.  Population Code Dynamics in Categorical Perception , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[52]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Cardinal rules: Visual orientation perception reflects knowledge of environmental statistics , 2011, Nature Neuroscience.

[53]  R. Freeman,et al.  Oblique effect: a neural basis in the visual cortex. , 2003, Journal of neurophysiology.