27
BINOCULAR RIVALRY A HIERARCHICAL MODEL FOR VISUAL COMPETETION Computational Evidence for a rivalry hierarchy in vision Wilson, PNAS (2003), Vol 100 (24), 14499-14503 Shantanu Jadhav Computational Neurobiology UCSD

BINOCULAR RIVALRY

  • Upload
    akio

  • View
    76

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

BINOCULAR RIVALRY. A HIERARCHICAL MODEL FOR VISUAL COMPETETION. Computational Evidence for a rivalry hierarchy in vision Wilson, PNAS (2003), Vol 100 (24), 14499-14503. Shantanu Jadhav Computational Neurobiology UCSD. Outline :. What is the Binocular Rivalry – the cognitive phenomenon - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

BINOCULAR RIVALRY

A HIERARCHICAL MODEL FOR VISUAL COMPETETIONComputational Evidence for a rivalry hierarchy in

visionWilson, PNAS (2003), Vol 100 (24), 14499-14503

Shantanu Jadhav

Computational Neurobiology

UCSD

Page 2: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

Outline :

• What is the Binocular Rivalry – the cognitive phenomenon

• Characteristics – Psychophysical features

• Experimental data and evidence

• The model

- What it tries to explain

- Implementation

- Results

- Predictions and limitations

Lecture 1: Benefits of Computational Models

- New explanations for cognitive phenomena

- Tie explanations of cognitive phenomena to the biological mechanisms

Page 3: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

• A class of phenomena characterized by fluctuating perceptual experience in the face of unvarying visual input.

•Bistability as a result of ambiguous information: dissimilar images presented to the two eyes.• Competition between the two images for perceptual dominance.• Dissociation between unchanging physical stimulation and fluctuating conscious awareness => A model for studying the neural basis of conscious visual awareness.

BINOCULAR RIVALRY

Page 4: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

Blake and Logothetis, Nat Rev Neuro, 2002, Vol3

Page 5: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

Perceptual CharacteristicsTemporal Dynamics:

• Fluctuations in dominance and suppression are not regular.• No voluntary control over fluctuations• Stimulus strength, attention and visual context influence dominance periods.• Dominance and suppression rely on distinct neural processes.• Successive durations of perceptual dominance conforms to gamma distribution (universal phenomenon in bistable percepts).

Page 6: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

Spatial Features

• Inter-ocular grouping during dominance => Not just suppression of an eye. (Also, figural grouping during vision rivalry)• Transitions between phases not instantaneous, but spread in a wave-like fashion

Page 7: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

Where in the visual pathway is rivalry expressed?

Map

Page 8: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

NEURAL CORRELATES OF RIVALRY: EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE

• fMRI: Modulation of activity during dominance and suppression phases in V1 (also MEGs and VERs)• Electrophysiology: No evidence for rivalry inhibition in the LGN• Modulation in Neural spiking activity in early visual cortical areas.• Increased modulation in successive stages of visual areas:

MTV1 V2

V4

• Higher areas: Response only to particular preferred stimulus – stage of processing beyond the resolution of perceptual conflict.• Decrease in visual sensitivity during suppression.• Rivalry involves multiple, distributed processes throughout the rivalry hierarchy.

Page 9: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

Computational Evidence for a rivalry hierarchy in visionWilson, PNAS (2003), Vol 100 (24), 14499-14503

• A Competitive Neural Model: Need at least two hierarchic rivalry stages for explaining data.• Specifically, the model explains the observations of a flicker and switch (F&S) procedure (which rules out inter-ocular rivalry).18 Hz On-Off flicker of orthogonal monocular gratings

+Swapping gratings between eyes

at 1.5 Hz

Perceptual Dominance Durations of 2.0 sec

Logothetis, et al., Nature (1996), 380, 621-624

Page 10: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

• A single phase of perceptual dominance can span multiple alternations of the stimuli •The persistence of dominance across eye-swaps depends on temporal parameters of the stimulus• High temporal frequencies reduce the efficacy of recurrent feedback inhibition within a network• This bypasses an initial competitive inter-ocular rivalry stage, and reveals higher levels of binocular competition

… … … … … …

0 ms 333 ms 666 ms 0 ms 333 ms 666 ms

Left Right

Stimulus :

Page 11: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

EVleft EHleftEVrightEHright

IVleft IHleft IHright IVright

EVbin EHbin

IVbinIHbin

Page 12: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

Spike-Rate Equations:

EVleft = Firing rate of an excitatory neuron responding to a vertical grating presented to the left eye,

Asymptotic firing rate given by Naka-Rushton function

EVleft drives Inhibitory Neuron Ivleft which inhibits EHright

HVleft: Slow self-adaptation by an aftehyperpolarizing current

Page 13: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

Ref: Lecture 3

Page 14: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

• Monocular Representations of horizontal and vertical gratings compete via strong reciprocal inhibition.

• The competing sets of neurons self-adapt, giving rise to dominance and suppression alterations.

• Spike-frequency adaptation by an Ca2+ dependent K+ current.

• The second competitive stage with binocular neurons described by similar equations, with input from first layer.

Vleft-bin(t) = EVleft(t) + EVright(t)

• Parameters:

V = 10, Emax=100,

g (inhibitory gain) = 45 at monocular level, 1.53g at higher level

h (hyperpolarizing current strength) = 0.47,

Excitatory input gain from monocular to binocular level = 0.75

Recurrent excitation = 0.02

Page 15: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

Results: Stimulus = Continuous vertical grating to left eye, horizontal grating to right eye.

Vertical grating response

Horizontal grating response

Alterations in dominance and suppression in both stages.

Dominance period of 2.4 sec

EVleft

EH

right

Page 16: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

F&S stimulus

Monocular Neurons cannot generate a competitive response alteration

Dominance period of 2.2 sec

Stronger Inhibition at binocular stage is the determining factor

Page 17: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

Conductance-based model:

Simplified equations for

Membrane Potential V, Recovery Variable R, inward Ca2+ current conductance T, slow Ca2+ dependent K+ hyperpolarizing conductance H

Wilson HR, J. Theor. Biol. (1999), 200, 375-388

Simplified equations reproduce spike shapes, firing rates and spike-frequency adaptation for human neocortical neurons

Page 18: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

Monocular stage: 12 neurons

8 excitatory, 2 each for each eye for each grating

4 inhibitory

Binocular stage: 6 neurons

4 excitatory, 2 each for each grating

2 inhibitory

Parameters:

TR = 4.2 msec (Exc), TR = 1.5 msec (Inh – Fast spiking cells with narrow AP)

ENa = 50 mV, EK = -95mV, ECa = 120 mV, C = 1 µF, TT = 50 msec, TH = 900 msec

After-hyperpolarizing current:

gT = 0.1, gH =2.5 (exc)

gT = 0.25, gH = 0 (inh – no spike-frequency adaptation)

Page 19: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

Conductance Model :

Normal Stimulus F&S Model

Left

Right

Output of layer 1

Page 20: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

Gamma Distribution for Dominance Durations

“A Spiking Neuron Model for Binocular Rivalry”, Laing and Chow, J. Comp. Neuro. (2002), 12, 39-53

Variable Strength Input

Page 21: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

Bifurcation Diagram for single-level Rivalry Model :

Need more inhibitory strength to produce rivalry with F&S stimulus.

h

g

Page 22: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

Experimental and Model Results

Positives :

• Gamma distribution of dominance durations is obtained.

• Results for F&S stimulus matched

- 18.0 Hz flicker & 1.5 Hz swap by themselves give conventional rivalry

• Dominance durations for variable stimulus strength reproduced.

• Excitatory Feedback of max 0.02 results in similar dynamics.

• Stronger inhibition at higher stages: More modulation during traditional rivalry !?

• Makes clear experimental predictions

Negatives :

• Inter-ocular grouping not accounted for (?)

• Spatial inhomogenities: Spread in a wave-like fashion.

• Do we really need two layers -> for dominance durations?

• Excitatory Feedback – Is it strong enough?

Page 23: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

Conclusions and Predictions

Predictions

• Maximum stimulus size for unitary rivalry should increase under F&S conditions.

• fMRI – Blind-spot conditions : No modulation of signal during F&S.

• V1 physiology: No modulation.

Conclusions

• Rivalry involves multiple, distributed processes throughout the visual system hierarchy

• No “locus” or “neural site” of rivalry

• Form vision and rivalry implemented through similar multiple networks.

Grand Conclusion

“Consciousness is a characteristic of extended neural circuits comprising several interacting cortical levels throughout the brain “

Page 24: BINOCULAR RIVALRY
Page 25: BINOCULAR RIVALRY
Page 26: BINOCULAR RIVALRY

The Naka-Rushton Function

A good fit for V1 spike rates

Steady state firing rate in response to a visual stimulus of contrast P:

Page 27: BINOCULAR RIVALRY