Literature DB >> 16411495

Is the early visual system optimised to be energy efficient?

Benjamin T Vincent1, Roland J Baddeley, Tom Troscianko, Iain D Gilchrist.   

Abstract

This paper demonstrates that a representation which balances natural image encoding with metabolic energy efficiency shows many similarities to the neural organisation observed in the early visual system. A simple linear model was constructed that learned receptive fields by optimally balancing information coding with metabolic expense for an entire visual field in a 2-stage visual system. The input to the model consists of a space variant retinal array of photoreceptors. Natural images were then encoded through a bottleneck such as the retinal ganglion cells that form the optic nerve. The natural images represented by the activity of retinal ganglion cells were then encoded by many more 'cortical' cells in a divergent representation. Qualitatively, the system learnt by optimising information coding and energy expenditure and matched (1) the centre surround organisation of retinal ganglion cells; (2) the Gabor-like organisation of cortical simple cells; (3) higher densities of receptive fields in the fovea decreasing in the periphery; (4) smaller receptive fields in the fovea increasing in size in the periphery; (5) spacing ratios of retinal cells; and (6) aspect ratios of cortical receptive fields. Quantitatively, however, there are small but significant discrepancies between density slopes which may be accounted for by taking optic blur and fixation induced image statistics into account. In addition, the model cortical receptive fields are more broadly tuned than biological cortical neurons; this may be accounted for by the computational limitation of modelling a relatively low number of neurons. This paper shows that retinal receptive field properties can be understood in terms of balancing coding with synaptic energy expenditure and cortical receptive fields with firing rate energy expenditure, and provides a sound biological explanation of why 'sparse' distributions are beneficial.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16411495     DOI: 10.1080/09548980500290047

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Network        ISSN: 0954-898X            Impact factor:   1.273


  10 in total

1.  The cost of linearization.

Authors:  Danielle Morel; William Levy
Journal:  J Comput Neurosci       Date:  2009-04-03       Impact factor: 1.621

2.  Linearization of excitatory synaptic integration at no extra cost.

Authors:  Danielle Morel; Chandan Singh; William B Levy
Journal:  J Comput Neurosci       Date:  2018-01-25       Impact factor: 1.621

3.  Uniform signal redundancy of parasol and midget ganglion cells in primate retina.

Authors:  Jeffrey L Gauthier; Greg D Field; Alexander Sher; Jonathon Shlens; Martin Greschner; Alan M Litke; E J Chichilnisky
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-04-08       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Sparse coding of birdsong and receptive field structure in songbirds.

Authors:  Garrett Greene; David G T Barrett; Kamal Sen; Conor Houghton
Journal:  Network       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 1.273

5.  A simple model of optimal population coding for sensory systems.

Authors:  Eizaburo Doi; Michael S Lewicki
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 4.475

6.  A structured model of video reproduces primary visual cortical organisation.

Authors:  Pietro Berkes; Richard E Turner; Maneesh Sahani
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2009-09-04       Impact factor: 4.475

7.  Efficient coding of spatial information in the primate retina.

Authors:  Eizaburo Doi; Jeffrey L Gauthier; Greg D Field; Jonathon Shlens; Alexander Sher; Martin Greschner; Timothy A Machado; Lauren H Jepson; Keith Mathieson; Deborah E Gunning; Alan M Litke; Liam Paninski; E J Chichilnisky; Eero P Simoncelli
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Receptive fields in primate retina are coordinated to sample visual space more uniformly.

Authors:  Jeffrey L Gauthier; Greg D Field; Alexander Sher; Martin Greschner; Jonathon Shlens; Alan M Litke; E J Chichilnisky
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2009-04-07       Impact factor: 8.029

9.  A resource-rational theory of set size effects in human visual working memory.

Authors:  Ronald van den Berg; Wei Ji Ma
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2018-08-07       Impact factor: 8.140

10.  Brain power.

Authors:  Vijay Balasubramanian
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-08-10       Impact factor: 11.205

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.