Detection by neuron populations
description
Transcript of Detection by neuron populations
![Page 1: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Detection by neuron populations
European Mathematical Psychology Group,
Graz, September 9 – 11, 2008
Uwe MortensenUniversity of Münster, Germany
![Page 2: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Detection
Probability summation No probability summation
Models of neural mechanisms
![Page 3: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
The notion of probability summation:
Among channels/mechanisms.
Detection occurs if the activity in at least one of a number of channels exceeds threshold.
Temporal:
Detection occurs if the activity at at least one point of time (within some inerval J = [0, T]) exceeds threshold.
Spatial:
Detection occurs if the activity at at least one point in space (retinal coordinate) exceeds threshold.
Usually just one type of PS is assumed in a given experiment
![Page 4: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Probability summation
No probability summation
Aim of detection experiments
Models/ Noise
correlated white
deterministic stochastic
Extreme values theory
Quick‘s model Nonlinear pooling
Network/popu-lation models
Max mean detection
Test
Identification of neural mechanisms
Inconsistency!
descriptive!
Can be fitted to most data – meaningful?
Theoretical status unclear!
![Page 5: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
1
| |
( ) 1 2
nbi
i
ch
c
Quick (1974)
Equivalent to Weibull-function
with log 2 absorbed into
( ) 1 bcc e
| |bii
h
channels spatial positions
| )|( ) 1 e
cht dt
W c
| |1bich
ip e Temporal PS
Watson (1979)(pooling, Minkowski-Metric)
Canonical models for PS in visual psychophysics
unit respones
c contrast
Proof/derivation?Tinkering with maxima of Gaussian variables
Goal directed ad hoc mathematics
![Page 6: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Quotes indicating use of Quick‘s approach:
Similar statements by Meese \& Williams (2000), Tversky, Geisler \& Perry (2004) on contour grouping, Monnier (2006), Meese \& Summers (2007),
… probability summation […] requires that the noises associated with different stimulations be uncorrelated.'' Gorea, Caetta, Sagi (2005, p.2531)
Watson \& Ahumada (2005) take Quick/Minkowski as a basis for a general model of contrast detection – everything is explained (?) Justification: as usual.
''To allow for the statistical nature of the detection process, the effects of probability summation must be incorporated. … A convenient way to compute the effects of spatial probability summation is based on Quick's (1974) parameterization of the psychometric function. (Wilson 1978, p. 973; similarly Wilson, Philips et al 1979, p. 594, Graham 1989, and many others.)
![Page 7: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Assumptions:
2 2
0
1( 1 exp[ exp[ ( ( ; )) ]]
2 2)
Tc S g t c dt
2 ''(0)R where the second spectral moment.
2
2
small noise fluctuates slowly
large noise fluctuates fast.
Detection and temporal probability summation – correlated noise
20
2
1
12 ( ) 1 ''(0) ( )
2R R o
( ) Noise is Gaussian and stationary
( ) Autocorrelation satisfies
22 ''(0) [( '( )) ] 0R E t
![Page 8: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Illustration of second spectral moment:
0 0Power spectrum: ( ) , S k
0 0
0
sin( )Autocorrelation: ( )
2
kR
30
2 3
k
0 2Autocorrelations for different and :
2 /22( ) ''(0)R e R
( ( ) ( ) ) ( white noise)R
Example 1:
Example 2:
![Page 9: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Roufs & Blommaert (1981): Determination of the impulse and step response by means of the perturbation technique
Data: Prediction
( , ) e
.079, 1/12.67, 3
p tg t c c t
b p
Temporal probability summation or maximum mean detection?
2For all values
of !
![Page 10: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Stimulus
Pre-filter (lens, retina, LGB)
Hebb‘s rule implies adaptation of neuron – local matched filter
Detection by a population of matched neurons
Defined by a DOG-function
![Page 11: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Test of matched neuron model: no probability summation of any sort!
StimulusResponse of pre-filter
Response of matched neurons
Data and predictions
To be estimated: four free parameters of the pre-filter!
![Page 12: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
„Channels“ and neuron populations: a stochastic model
Channel = Population of N neurons
( , ) [ , ]an t t t t t t number of active neurons within .
( , )an t t t
N
proportion of active neurons
0
( , )1( ) lim a
t
n t t tA t t
t N
activity of population at time
The meaning of activity
(based on a model of Gerstner (2000))
![Page 13: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
( )
1
( ) ( ) ( )
i
Nf ext
i ij jj
I i
I t w t t I t
Input current for the -th neuron
ijw i j synaptic coupling of -th neuron with th neuron ,
( )
( )
( fj
fj
t t
t
) time course of postsynaptic current
generated by spike at time
( )extI t is mean response of sensoric neurons activating
observed population
0 /ijw k N homogeneous case: all-to-all coupling
0 0 excitatoryk
0 0 inhibitoryk
0 0 independencek
![Page 14: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
( ), 1,...,im i i
duu RI t i N
dt
Integrate-and-fire neurons:
m RC time constant of cell membrane
r iu u
Activity of an individual neuron
Threshold (spike generation)
Resting potential
Membrane potential of i-th neuron
![Page 15: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
0
0
0 0( , )( , ) ,
u u
N u
n u u up u t du
N
lim
Membrane potential density
0 0( , )n u u u
N
0 0u u u
Proportion neurons with membrane potential between
and
Membrane potential density
( , ) ( , )p u t p u tTaylor-expansion of Fokker-Planck-equation for
Stochastic differential equation for individual trajectory of u:
( , )specify activity specify p u t
![Page 16: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
20 0( ) [ ( ) ( ) ( )] ( ) ( ),
( )
ext
r
du t a u t I t t dt t dW t
u u t
Activity.from stimulus
Activity from environment
Derivative of Brownian motion = white noise
( ) is restricted to this
interval!
u t
Drift Diffusion
![Page 17: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
0 0 0( ) [ ( ) ( ) ( ))] ( ) ( ),extdu t a u t I t t dt k t dW t
( )
( )
varies slowly compared to stimulus driven activity
( Leopold, Murayama,Logothetis, 2003)
determines i the level of activation not due to stimulus,
and ii its variance,
constant within trial, varies randomly between trials.
20 0( ) [ ( ) ( ) ( )] ( ) ( ),
( )
ext
r
du t a u t I t t dt t dW t
u u t
![Page 18: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Response to short pulses and step functions
( ) ( ) exp( ) ( Roufs & Blommaert, 1981)ext pI t c at at
15.5 7.5 2.5
1. The amplitude of mean response g is the same in all three cases – the smaller eta, the more pronounced is g
2. The peaks of the activity (spike rate) are extremely short compared to the mean response to the stimulus – prob. summation is unlikely!
(Response to a 2 ms pulse!)
![Page 19: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
0g xS
max
Detection model:
Ground activity: determines probability of false alarm
Maximum of mean activity
Noise (= activity) from environment ( > 0)
Threshold value
Yeshurun & Carrasco, 1998, 1999; Treue, 2003; Martinez-Trujillo & Treue, 2004: focussing attention on a position or feature will reduce noise and enhance the response.
However: Reynolds & Desimone, 2003: attention increases contrast gain in V4-neurons…
The probability of detection depends on how pronounced the (mean) activity generated by the stimulus is with respect to the overall activity.
Operationalised:
![Page 20: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Summary:
1. Quick‘s (1974) model (white noise) may lead to arbitrary interpretations of data
2. Correlated activity is the norm, not the exception3. More realistic models (correlated noise) of probability summation
show that probability summation is not a general mode of detection with max-mean or peak detection a special case
4. There may be adaptive processes – mechanisms are not necessarily invariant with respect to stimulation
5. Construct dynamic network or population models, - not diffuse „nonlinear summation“ models
![Page 21: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Thank you for your attention!
![Page 22: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
0
1( ) 1 exp[ exp[ ( ( , ))] ]Gauss:
Tc S g t c dt
T
0
1( ) 1 exp[ ( ( , ) ) ], 0Weibull: with
Tc g t c S dt S
T
Probability summation over time - the white noise case:
Application of extreme value statistics for independent variables
0
1(0) 1 exp[ ( ) ] 1 exp[ ( ) ], 0
T
S dt S ST
0
1(0) 1 exp[ exp( ) ] 1 exp[ ( )]
T
S dt exp ST
(0) 0 independent of T
0
0
1 exp[ ( ) ] (0) 1 exp[ ] 0, T
ot dt T But:
Hazard function
![Page 23: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Detection by TPS, Gaussian coloured noise
The form of the psychometric function and its approximation by a Weibull function; different stimulus durations.
Mean response g(t) Psychometric function:2 2
0
1( 1 exp[ exp[ ( ( ; )) ]]
2 2)
Tc S g t c dt
Does not approach the expression for white noise if lambda-2 approaches infinity!
![Page 24: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Roufs & Blommaert (1981): Direct measurement of impulse and step responses by means of a perturbation technique.
Impulse response, transient channel, as determined by perturbation method
Impulse response, as derived from MTF: true according to Watson (1981)(although the additional assumption of a minimum phase system has to be made).
![Page 25: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Roufs & Blommaert (1981): Direct measurement of impulse and step responses by means of a perturbation technique (assuming maximum-of-mean detection).
Impulse response for transient channels: 3- or 2-phasic?
Watson (1981):
triphasic impulse response is an artifact
Quick‘s model with exponent between 2 and 7 yields 3-phasic impulse repsonse. True response is 2-phasic, as derived from MTF.
Artifact?
Assumption of
peak detection?
probability summation?
![Page 26: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Templates or matched filters for circular discs of different diameters, superimposed on subthreshold Bessel-Jo-patterns for various spatial frequency parameters: neither temporal nor spatial probability summation.
Spatial probability summation:
![Page 27: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Data and predictions of template/MF-model, based on temporal peak detection
There is no „nonlinear Minkowski-summation claimed by Watson & Ahumada (2005) as a necessary element in the detection process!
![Page 28: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Determination of line spread function – Hines (1976)
![Page 29: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Rentschler & Hilz (1976) – Disinhibition in LSF-measurements?
Disinhibition?
Flanking line about 75% of test line!
![Page 30: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Wilson, Philips et al (1979) – no disinhibition, but spatial probability summation, as modelled by Quick‘s rule
![Page 31: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
LSF and LSF-estimates – probability summation, correlated noise p(false alarm) = .1
![Page 32: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
LSF and LSF-estimates – probability summation, correlated noise p(false alarm) = .01
![Page 33: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Probability summation: correlated noise(q: luminance proportion of flanking lines, P(fA) = .1)
Probability summation does not predict disinhibition, - rather, inhibition!
No pseudo-disinhibitionfor „white noise“!
Pseudo-inhibition for higher flanking contrasts, no pseudo-disinhibition!
![Page 34: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
LSF-prediction by Quick‘s rule; stimulus configuration A
![Page 35: Detection by neuron populations](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081519/568144d3550346895db19c52/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Explore mechanisms
Prob. Summation. No Prob. Summation
Correlated noise
Whitenoise
Deterministic models
Stochasticmodels
Quick (1974)
1
| |
( ) 1 2
nbi
i
ch
c
Pooling
with log 2 absorbed into
( ) 1 bcc e
Max Mean response
Test
(Minkowski-Metric)
Implies inconsistency
Equivalent to Weibull-function
1/
1/ | |b
b bi
i
h
(Canonical model in visual psychophysics)