Literature DB >> 18353910

On the importance of static nonlinearity in estimating spatiotemporal neural filters with natural stimuli.

Tatyana O Sharpee1, Kenneth D Miller, Michael P Stryker.   

Abstract

Understanding neural responses with natural stimuli has increasingly become an essential part of characterizing neural coding. Neural responses are commonly characterized by a linear-nonlinear (LN) model, in which the output of a linear filter applied to the stimulus is transformed by a static nonlinearity to determine neural response. To estimate the linear filter in the LN model, studies of responses to natural stimuli commonly use methods that are unbiased only for a linear model (in which there is no static nonlinearity): spike-triggered averages with correction for stimulus power spectrum, with or without regularization. Although these methods work well for artificial stimuli, such as Gaussian white noise, we show here that they estimate neural filters of LN models from responses to natural stimuli much more poorly. We studied simple cells in cat primary visual cortex. We demonstrate that the filters computed by directly taking the nonlinearity into account have better predictive power and depend less on the stimulus than those computed under the linear model. With noise stimuli, filters computed using the linear and LN models were similar, as predicted theoretically. With natural stimuli, filters of the two models can differ profoundly. Noise and natural stimulus filters differed significantly in spatial properties, but these differences were exaggerated when filters were computed using the linear rather than the LN model. Although regularization of filters computed under the linear model improved their predictive power, it also led to systematic distortions of their spatial frequency profiles, especially at low spatial and temporal frequencies.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18353910      PMCID: PMC2877595          DOI: 10.1152/jn.01397.2007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  50 in total

1.  A simple white noise analysis of neuronal light responses.

Authors:  E J Chichilnisky
Journal:  Network       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 1.273

2.  What causes a neuron to spike?

Authors:  Blaise Agüera y Arcas; Adrienne L Fairhall
Journal:  Neural Comput       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 2.026

3.  Neural adjustments to image blur.

Authors:  Michael A Webster; Mark A Georgeson; Shernaaz M Webster
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 24.884

4.  Natural stimulus statistics alter the receptive field structure of v1 neurons.

Authors:  Stephen V David; William E Vinje; Jack L Gallant
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2004-08-04       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Tuning for spectro-temporal modulations as a mechanism for auditory discrimination of natural sounds.

Authors:  Sarah M N Woolley; Thane E Fremouw; Anne Hsu; Frédéric E Theunissen
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2005-09-04       Impact factor: 24.884

Review 6.  Auditory processing of vocal sounds in birds.

Authors:  Frédéric E Theunissen; Sarita S Shaevitz
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2006-07-13       Impact factor: 6.627

7.  Neural adjustments to chromatic blur.

Authors:  Michael A Webster; Yoko Mizokami; Leedjia A Svec; Sarah L Elliott
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  2006

8.  The consequences of response nonlinearities for interpretation of spectrotemporal receptive fields.

Authors:  G Björn Christianson; Maneesh Sahani; Jennifer F Linden
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2008-01-09       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response properties of cortical cells.

Authors:  D J Field
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A       Date:  1987-12       Impact factor: 2.129

10.  Two-dimensional time coding in the auditory brainstem.

Authors:  Sean J Slee; Matthew H Higgs; Adrienne L Fairhall; William J Spain
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2005-10-26       Impact factor: 6.709

View more
  26 in total

1.  The accuracy of membrane potential reconstruction based on spiking receptive fields.

Authors:  Deepankar Mohanty; Benjamin Scholl; Nicholas J Priebe
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-01-25       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Receptive field dimensionality increases from the auditory midbrain to cortex.

Authors:  Craig A Atencio; Tatyana O Sharpee; Christoph E Schreiner
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Characterizing responses of translation-invariant neurons to natural stimuli: maximally informative invariant dimensions.

Authors:  Michael Eickenberg; Ryan J Rowekamp; Minjoon Kouh; Tatyana O Sharpee
Journal:  Neural Comput       Date:  2012-06-26       Impact factor: 2.026

4.  Spatial structure of neuronal receptive field in awake monkey secondary visual cortex (V2).

Authors:  Lu Liu; Liang She; Ming Chen; Tianyi Liu; Haidong D Lu; Yang Dan; Mu-ming Poo
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-02-02       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Wiener-Volterra characterization of neurons in primary auditory cortex using poisson-distributed impulse train inputs.

Authors:  Martin Pienkowski; Greg Shaw; Jos J Eggermont
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-03-25       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 6.  Computational identification of receptive fields.

Authors:  Tatyana O Sharpee
Journal:  Annu Rev Neurosci       Date:  2013-07-08       Impact factor: 12.449

7.  Attention directed by expectations enhances receptive fields in cortical area MT.

Authors:  Geoffrey M Ghose; David W Bearl
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2009-10-09       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  Hierarchical computation in the canonical auditory cortical circuit.

Authors:  Craig A Atencio; Tatyana O Sharpee; Christoph E Schreiner
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-11-16       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Rhythmic auditory cortex activity at multiple timescales shapes stimulus-response gain and background firing.

Authors:  Christoph Kayser; Caroline Wilson; Houman Safaai; Shuzo Sakata; Stefano Panzeri
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2015-05-20       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Effects of spike-triggered negative feedback on receptive-field properties.

Authors:  Eugenio Urdapilleta; Inés Samengo
Journal:  J Comput Neurosci       Date:  2015-01-21       Impact factor: 1.621

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.