2016
DOI: 10.1523/jneurosci.2603-16.2016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Orientation Selectivity from Very Sparse LGN Inputs in a Comprehensive Model of Macaque V1 Cortex

Abstract: A new computational model of the primary visual cortex (V1) of the macaque monkey was constructed to reconcile the visual functions of V1 with anatomical data on its LGN input, the extreme sparseness of which presented serious challenges to theoretically sound explanations of cortical function. We demonstrate that, even with such sparse input, it is possible to produce robust orientation selectivity, as well as continuity in the orientation map. We went beyond that to find plausible dynamic regimes of our new … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

14
158
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 90 publications
(172 citation statements)
references
References 86 publications
14
158
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As evidenced by the mean and single neuron orientation tuning curves shown in 6A, most excitatory and inhibitory units in the model cortical Layer 4 and 2/3 exhibit contrast invariance of orientation tuning width, which is further confirmed by comparing the HWHH of the tuning curves at low and high contrast ( Figure 6B: most points lie close to the identity line). On average we observe very minor broadening of the tuning curves at high contrast, and it is more pronounced in inhibitory neurons: the mean HWHH differences between low and high contrasts is 0.8 • (excitatory, Overall, the orientation tuning in our model is in very good qualitative and quantitative agreement with experimental data, with both excitatory and inhibitory neurons exhibiting sharp and contrast-invariant orientation tuning across all modeled layers, in contrast to many previous modeling studies that relied on untuned inhibition, or broad contrastdependent inhibition (Troyer et al 1998;Lauritzen and Miller 2003;Chariker et al 2016).…”
Section: The Mean Tuning Widths Of Excitatory and Inhibitory Neurons supporting
confidence: 79%
“…As evidenced by the mean and single neuron orientation tuning curves shown in 6A, most excitatory and inhibitory units in the model cortical Layer 4 and 2/3 exhibit contrast invariance of orientation tuning width, which is further confirmed by comparing the HWHH of the tuning curves at low and high contrast ( Figure 6B: most points lie close to the identity line). On average we observe very minor broadening of the tuning curves at high contrast, and it is more pronounced in inhibitory neurons: the mean HWHH differences between low and high contrasts is 0.8 • (excitatory, Overall, the orientation tuning in our model is in very good qualitative and quantitative agreement with experimental data, with both excitatory and inhibitory neurons exhibiting sharp and contrast-invariant orientation tuning across all modeled layers, in contrast to many previous modeling studies that relied on untuned inhibition, or broad contrastdependent inhibition (Troyer et al 1998;Lauritzen and Miller 2003;Chariker et al 2016).…”
Section: The Mean Tuning Widths Of Excitatory and Inhibitory Neurons supporting
confidence: 79%
“…This difference may challenge the purely feedforward explanation of adaptation in visual cortex, even if only indicating a late top-down modulation. We note that consideration of recurrent connectivity as essential to explaining V1 phenomena was emphasized in recent modeling work by Chariker et al [69], although not in the context of adaptation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Theoretically, recurrent feedback inhibition is indispensable for stabilizing recurrent excitation, which serves to amplify specific input patterns and generate persistent activity (van Vreeswijk & Sompolinsky 1996, Bressloff et al 2001, Bressloff & Cowan 2002). Experimental evidence suggests that local inhibitory connections are strong and dense (Fino & Yuste 2011, Hofer et al 2011, Isaacson & Scanziani 2011) and that some fundamental cortical responses can be explained only if the cortex operates in a regime of strong and balanced recurrent connections (Marino et al 2005, Ozeki et al 2009, Stimberg et al 2009, Shushruth et al 2012, Chariker et al 2016). …”
Section: Mechanisms For Surround Modulationmentioning
confidence: 99%