Advertisement

Geometry of orientation preference map determines nonclassical receptive field properties

  • U. Ernst
  • K. Pawelzik
  • F. Wolf
  • T. Geisel
Part II: Cortical Maps and Receptive Fields
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1327)

Abstract

We propose a simple mechanism for the nonclassical receptive field property of orientation contrast sensitivity. Our model includes the long-range lateral connections linking cell populations of similar orientation preference, and the dynamics of local microcircuits which introduce a differential interaction whose sign depends on the post- and presynaptic activation. We demonstrate that the geometry of an orientation preference map determines the positions of cells sensitive for orientation contrasts, and we propose a simple statistical method to check the predictions of our model for experimentally given maps.

Keywords

Receptive Field Presynaptic Activation Differential Interaction Orientation Contrast Orientation Column 
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.
    A.M. Sillito, K.L. Grieve, H.E. Jones, J. Cudeiro, and J. Davis, Visual cortical mechanisms detecting focal orientation discontinuities, Nature 378, 492–496 (1995).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Ts'o, C.D. Gilbert, and T.N. Wiesel, J. Neurosci 6, 1160–1170 (1986).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C.D. Gilbert and T.N. Wiesel, J. Neurosci. 9, 2432–2442 (1989).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Löwel and W. Singer, Science 255, 209 (1992).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Malach, Y. Amir, M. Harel, and A. Grinvald, PNAS 90, 10469–10473 (1993).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.A. Hirsch and C.D. Gilbert, J. Neurosci. 6, 1800–1809 (1991).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Weliky, K. Kandler, D. Fitzpatrick, and L.C. Katz, Neuron 15, 541–552 (1995).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Stemmler, M. Usher, and E. Niebur, Science 269, 1877–1880 (1995).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L.J. Toth, D.C. Somers, S.C. Rao, E.V. Todorov, D.-S. Kim, S.B. Nelson, A.G. Siapas, and M. Sur, preprint 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    U. Polat, D. Sagi, Vision Res. 7, 993–999 (1993).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.J. Knierim and D.C. van Essen, J. Neurophys. 67, 961–980 (1992).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H.R. Wilson and J. Cowan, Biol. Cyb. 13, 55–80 (1973).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Ben-Yishai, R.L. Bar-Or, and H. Sompolinsky, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 92, 3844–3848 (1995).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Somers, S.B. Nelson, and M. Sur, J. Neurosci. 15, 5448–5465 (1995).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • U. Ernst
    • 1
  • K. Pawelzik
    • 1
  • F. Wolf
    • 1
  • T. Geisel
    • 1
  1. 1.MPI für StrömungsforschungGöttingen

Personalised recommendations