MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nonlinear Y-Like Receptive Fields in the Early Visual Cortex: An Intermediate Stage for Building Cue-Invariant Receptive Fields from Subcortical Y Cells

2016· article· en· W2567495231 on OpenAlexafffund
Amol Gharat, Curtis L. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNvidia
KeywordsReceptive fieldVisual cortexSpatial frequencySurround suppressionNeuroscienceLuminanceContrast (vision)Orientation columnInvariant (physics)PsychologyPhysicsOpticsVisual perceptionStriate cortexPerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many of the neurons in early visual cortex are selective for the orientation of boundaries defined by first-order cues (luminance) as well as second-order cues (contrast, texture). The neural circuit mechanism underlying this selectivity is still unclear, but some studies have proposed that it emerges from spatial nonlinearities of subcortical Y cells. To understand how inputs from the Y-cell pathway might be pooled to generate cue-invariant receptive fields, we recorded visual responses from single neurons in cat Area 18 using linear multielectrode arrays. We measured responses to drifting and contrast-reversing luminance gratings as well as contrast modulation gratings. We found that a large fraction of these neurons have nonoriented responses to gratings, similar to those of subcortical Y cells: they respond at the second harmonic (F2) to high-spatial frequency contrast-reversing gratings and at the first harmonic (F1) to low-spatial frequency drifting gratings ("Y-cell signature"). For a given neuron, spatial frequency tuning for linear (F1) and nonlinear (F2) responses is quite distinct, similar to orientation-selective cue-invariant neurons. Also, these neurons respond to contrast modulation gratings with selectivity for the carrier (texture) spatial frequency and, in some cases, orientation. Their receptive field properties suggest that they could serve as building blocks for orientation-selective cue-invariant neurons. We propose a circuit model that combines ON- and OFF-center cortical Y-like cells in an unbalanced push-pull manner to generate orientation-selective, cue-invariant receptive fields. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: A significant fraction of neurons in early visual cortex have specialized receptive fields that allow them to selectively respond to the orientation of boundaries that are invariant to the cue (luminance, contrast, texture, motion) that defines them. However, the neural mechanism to construct such versatile receptive fields remains unclear. Using multielectrode recording, we found a large fraction of neurons in early visual cortex with receptive fields not selective for orientation that have spatial nonlinearities like those of subcortical Y cells. These are strong candidates for building cue-invariant orientation-selective neurons; we present a neural circuit model that pools such neurons in an imbalanced "push-pull" manner, to generate orientation-selective cue-invariant receptive fields.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207