Effect of Binocular Cortical Misalignment on Networks of BCM and Oja Neurons

  • Harel Shouval
  • Nathan Intrator
  • Leon N. Cooper

Abstract

A two-eye visual environment, composed of natural images, is used in training a network of interacting BCM and Oja (PCA) neurons. This work is an extends our previous single cell model [10] to networks of interacting neurons. We study the effect of misalignment, between the synaptic density functions connecting both eyes to each single neuron, on the formation of orientation selectivity and ocular dominance. We show that for the BCM rule a natural image environment with binocular cortical misalignment is sufficient for producing networks of orientation selective cells with varying ocular dominance. Oja neurons in contrast are always perfectly binocular.

Keywords

Receptive Field Visual Environment Ocular Dominance Orientation Selectivity Receptive Field Property 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Bell, A. J. and Sejnowski, T. J. (1995). An information-maximisation approach to blind separation and blind deconvolution. Neural Computation, 7 (6): 1129–1159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Bienenstock, E. L., Cooper, L. N., and Munro, P. W. (1982). Theory for the development of neuron selectivity: orientation specificity and binocular interaction in visual cortex. Journal Neuroscience, 2: 32–48.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Intrator, N. and Cooper, L. N. (1992). Objective function formulation of the BCM theory of visual cortical plasticity: Statistical connections, stability conditions. Neural Networks, 5: 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Linsker, R. (1986). From basic network principles to neural architecture: Emergence of orientation selective cells. PNAS, 83:7508–7512, 8390–8394, 8779–8783.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Miller, K. D., Keller, J., and Stryker, M. P. (1989). Ocular dominance column development: Analysis and simulation. Science, 240: 605–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Oja, E. (1982). A simplified neuron model as a principal component analyzer. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 15: 267–273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Oja, E. and Karhunen, J. (1995). Signal seperation by nonlinear Hebbian learning. In Attikiouzel, Y., Marks, R., Fogel, D., and Fukuda, T., editors, Computational Intelligence - a Dynamics System Perspercitve. IEEE, Press.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Olshausen, B. A. and Field, D. J. (1996). Emergence of simple cell receptive field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images. Nature, 381: 607–609.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Sejnowski, T. J. (1977). Storing covariance with nonlinearly interacting neurons. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 4: 303–321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Shouval, H., Intrator, N., and N Cooper, L. (1996). BCM network develops orientation selectivity and ocular dominance from natural scenes environment. Vision Research, page Submitted.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Shouval, H. and Liu, Y. (1996). Principal component neurons in a realistic visual environment. Network,7:3. In Press.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    von der Malsburg, C. (1973). Self-organization of orientation sensitive cells in striate cortex. Kybernetik, 14: 85–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harel Shouval
    • 1
  • Nathan Intrator
    • 2
  • Leon N. Cooper
    • 1
  1. 1.Departments of Physics and Neuroscience The Institute for Brain and Neural SystemsBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  2. 2.School of Mathematical SciencesTel-Aviv UniversityIsrael

Personalised recommendations