• Teich Andrew F
• Qian Ning

Journal of neurophysiology

• Publish Date: Jul 2006
• ISSN: 0022-3077
• Volume: 96
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 404-19
• Medium: Print
• Language: English
• Citation (JAMA): Teich Andrew F, Qian Ning, et al. Comparison Among Some Models of Orientation Selectivity.. J. Neurophysiol. Jul 2006;96:404-19

Abstract

Several models exist for explaining primary visual cortex (V1) orientation tuning. The modified feedforward model (MFM) and the recurrent model (RM) are major examples. We have implemented these two models, at the same level of detail, alongside a few newer variations, and thoroughly compared their receptive-field structures. We found that antiphase inhibition in the MFM enhances both spatial phase information and orientation tuning, producing well-tuned simple cells. This remains true for a newer version of the MFM that incorporates untuned complex-cell inhibition. In contrast, when the recurrent connections in the RM are strong enough to produce typical V1 orientation tuning, they also eliminate spatial phase information, making the cells complex. Introducing phase specificity into the connections of the RM (as done in an original version of the RM) can make the cells phase sensitive, but the cells show an incorrect 90 degrees peak shift of orientation tuning under opposite contrast signs. An inhibition-dominant version of the RM can generate well-tuned cells across the simple-complex spectrum, but it predicts that the net effect of cortical interactions is to suppress feedforward excitation across all orientations in simple cells. Finally, adding antiphase inhibition used in the MFM into the RM produces a most general model. We call this new model the modified recurrent model (MRM) and show that this model can also produce well-tuned cells throughout the simple-complex spectrum. Unlike the inhibition-dominant RM, the MRM is consistent with data from cat V1, suggesting that the net effect of cortical interactions is to boost simple cell responses at the preferred orientation. These results suggest that the MFM is well suited for explaining orientation tuning in simple cells, whereas the standard RM is for complex cells. The assignment of the RM to complex cells also avoids conflicts between the RM and the experiments of cortical inactivation (done on simple cells) and the spatial-frequency dependency of orientation tuning (found in simple cells). Because orientation-tuned V1 cells show a continuum of simple- to complex-cell behavior, the MRM provides the best description of V1 data.

This abstract is part of PubMed, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. PubMed includes more than 17 million citations from MEDLINE and other life science journals for biomedical articles. See Copyright and Disclaimers.

Linked medical terms appearing on this page are added by Healia to help readers find more information and are not part of the original PubMed document.

The data herein was last updated on July 8th, 2008 and may not reflect the most current and accurate data available from NLM.