Must pinwheels move during visual development ?
The pinwheel-like arrangement of iso-orientation domains around orientation centers is a ubiquitous structural element of orientation preference maps in primary visual cortex. Here we investigate how activity-dependent mechanisms constrain the way in which orientation centers can form during visual development. We consider the dynamics of a large class of models for the activity-dependent self-organization of orientation preference maps. We prove for this class of models that the density of orientation centers which proliferate as orientation selectivity arises from an unselective state exhibits a universal lower bound. At least π/Λ2 pinwheels must form initially, where d is the characteristic wavelength of iso-orientation domains. Due to topological constraints the density of orientation centers can only change by discrete creation and annihilation events. Consequently densities lower than π/Λ2 must develop through an initial overproduction and subsequent annihilation of pinwheels. Monitoring the density of orientation centers during development therefore offers a powerful novel approach to test whether orientation preference arises by activity-dependent mechanisms or is genetically predetermined.
KeywordsNonlinear Phase Characteristic Wavelength Orientation Selectivity Gaussian Random Field Initial Pattern
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Chapman, B. and Stryker, M. P. J. Neuroscience 13, 5251–5262 (1993).Google Scholar
- 2.Chapman, B., Stryker, M. P., and Bonhoeffer, T. J. Neuroscience 16, 6443–6453 (1996).Google Scholar
- 3.von der Malsburg, C. Kybernetik 14, 85–100 (1973).Google Scholar
- 4.Nass, M. M. and Cooper, L. N. Biol. Cybernetics 19, 1–18 (1975).Google Scholar
- 5.Daw, N. W. Visual Development. Plenum Press, New York, (1995).Google Scholar
- 6.Swindale, N. Network: Computation in Neural Systems 7, 161–247 (1996).Google Scholar
- 7.Miller, K. D. In Models of Neural Networks III, Domany, E., van Hemmen, J., and Schulten, K., editors. Springer-Verlag, NY (1995).Google Scholar
- 8.Halperin, B. I. In Physics of Defects, Les Houches, Session XXXV, 1980, Balian, R., Kléman, M., and Poirier, J.-P., editors (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1981).Google Scholar
- 9.Durbin, R. and Mitchinson, G. Nature 343, 644–647 (1990).Google Scholar
- 10.Obermayer, K., Blasdel, G. G., and Schulten, K. Phys. Rev. A 45, 7568–7589 (1992).Google Scholar
- 11.Wiesel, T. N. and Hubel, D. H. J. Comp. Neurol. 158, 307–318 (1974).Google Scholar
- 12.Stryker, M. P. In Neuroscience Res. Prog. Bull., Vol. 15, No.3, chapter VII, 454–462. MIT Press (1977).Google Scholar
- 13.Changeux, J.-P. and Danchin, A. Nature 264, 705–712 (1976).Google Scholar
- 14.Obermayer, K. and Blasdel, G. G. Neural Computation 9, 555–575 (1997).Google Scholar
- 15.Bonhoeffer, T., Kim, D.-S., Malonek, D., Shoham, D., and Grinvald, A. Europ. J. Neuroscience 7, 1973–1988 (1995).Google Scholar
- 16.Bosking, W. H., Zhang, Y., Schofield, B. R., and Fitzpatrick, D. J. Neuroscience 17, 2112–2127 (1997).Google Scholar