Advertisement

Synapse clustering can drive simultaneous ON-OFF and ocular-dominance segregation in a model of area 17

  • Martin Stetted
  • Elmar W. Lang
  • Klaus Obermayerl
Part II: Cortical Maps and Receptive Fields
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1327)

Abstract

In the primary visual cortex of monkeys, the development of ocular dominance and orientation selectivity is at least partially driven by neural activity. We propose a modified Hebb-type learning mechanism, which takes into account non-specific components of activity-dependent synaptic modification. It is shown analytically, that ocular dominance and ON-OFF-segregation occur simultaneously in a linear network as soon as left-eye and right-eye synapses tend to cluster on the surface of the postsynaptic neuron. Simulations show, that this mechanism is robust against the introduction of network nonlinearities such as rectifying transfer functions and intracortical recurrency. The results imply, that details of single cell properties can have considerable influence on the behaviour of high level developmental models.

Keywords

Receptive Field Primary Visual Cortex Postsynaptic Neuron Ocular Dominance Orientation Selectivity 
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.
    M. P. Stryker and W. Harris. Binocular impuls blockade prevents the formation of ocular dominance columns in cat visual cortex. J. Neurosci., 6:2117–2133, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. N. Wiesel and D. H. Hubel. Ordered arrangement of orientation columns in monkeys lacking visual experience. J. Comp. Neurol, 158:307–318, 1974.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Stetter, E. W. Lang, and A. Miner. Emergence of orientation selective simple cells simulated in deterministic and stochastic neural networks. Biol. Cybern., 68:465–476, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ]K. D. Miller. A model for the development of simple cell receptive fields and the ordered arrangement of orientation columns through activity-dependent competition between on-and off-center inputs. J. Neurosci., 14:409–441, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Stetter, A. Müller, and E. W. Lang. Neural network model for the coordinated formation of orientation preference and orientation selectivity maps. Phys. Rev. E, 50:4167–4181, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. D. Müller, J. B. Keller, and M. P. Stryker. Ocular dominance column development: Analysis and simulation. Science, 245:605–615, 1989.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Piepenbrock, H. Ritter, and K. Obermayer. Linear correlation-based learning models require a two-stage process for the development of orientation and ocular dominance. Neural Proc. Lett., 3:31–37, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Engert and T. Bonhoeffer. Synapse specifity of long-term potentiation breaks down at short distances. Nature, page submitted, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. Piepenbrock, H. Ritter, and K. Obermayer. The joint development of orientation and ocular dominance: Role of constraints. Neural Comp., 9:in press, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Stetted
    • 1
  • Elmar W. Lang
    • 2
  • Klaus Obermayerl
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceTechnische Universität BerlinGermany
  2. 2.Dept. of BiophysicsUniversität RegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations