MT1 perception- receptive fields and neural analysis Flashcards
Who`showed that retinal ganglion cells have spatially concentric receptive fields
Kuffler (1953)
Study showing the contingency requirements of some cells
A particular unti may require a bar is in a particular region of the visual field AND a particular direction AND a particular colour AND moving in a particular direction (Gouras, 1974)
Study suggesting receptive fields get less specific as analysis gets more complex
Hubel and Wiesel (1968)- analyses of form and colour were progressively dissociated in areas 17 of the monkey’s cortex, only 7% of complex cells were colour coded
Study suggesting receptive fields get mroe specific as analysis gets more complex
Yates (1974)- the more narrowly tuned a cell is to colour, the more likely it is to have comlex field properties
Study suggesting there may be anatomically distinct centres for different stimulus properties analysis
Zeki (1974)- almost every cell in V4 that shows other stimulus requirements is also colour specific, but in another movement selective cortex area colour specificity is apparently absent
Who argued receptive fields are like template ‘fly detectors’
Barlow, 1953
Who argued receptive fields are like ‘bug detectors’
Lettvin et al (1959)- in frog retina and optic tectum
Who argued receptive fields as ‘filters’
Lettvin et al, 1959
Who argued for the use of lateral inhibition for receptive fields to act as filters
Ratliff and Hartline
Who argued receptive fields act as spatial frequency analyers
Campbell and Robson, 1968
Who argued receptive fields are ‘zero crossing’ detectors
Marr and Hildreth (1980)
Study supporting receptive fields as templates for movement detection
Whitsel et al (1972)- cells sensitive to the direction a tactile stimulus is drawn across a particular area have been found in somatosensory area 1 in monkey cortex
Who provided evidence for simple cell receptive fields being contructed from LGN cells
Fester and Miller (2000)_ simple cells receive excitatory and inhibitory inputs from alternating parallel rows of LGN cells aligned in a specific direction
Who first discovered face cells in the AIT
Gross
Properties of simple cells
Orientation selective, linear, bar shaped receptive field
Properties of complex cells
Orientation selective, often directinoally selective, non-linear, larger receptive field
Properties of hypercomplex cells
Orientation selective, often directinoally selective, non-linear, ‘end-stopped’
What are the 3 kinds of theory for the role of concentric receptive fields
Templates, filters, zero crossing detectors
Criticisms of receptive fields as templates
Circuitry and timing don’t make sense, hypercomplex cells criticised, grandmother cells, combinatorial explosion, principle of univariance
Evidence for issues in the circuity proposed by Hubel an Wiesel
Hoffman and Stone (1971)- certain complex and hypercomplex cells seem to receive monosynaptic input from axons of LGN units rather than getting exclusive input from simple cells, as they respond with very short latency
Study showing hypercompelx cells don’t really exist
Rose (1974)- many cells conventionally classed as simple or complex are ‘endstopped’, so there;s no basis for seeing hypercomplex cells are anything more than extreme cases of simple or complex cells
Study showing hypercomplex cells fit easily into simple and complex cell descriptinos
Dreher (1972)- there are 2 types of hypercomplex unit, those with the properties of simple cells and those of complex cells
Who proposed the ‘Gnostic unit’
Konorski (1967)- logical end point of combining features into ever more elaborate features, a receptive field to complex it responds to one complex pattern only
Who proposed the concept of ‘grandmother cells’
Lettvin (1969)
Who proposed the principle of univariance (criticms of template model)
Rushton-neurons tend to respond to mroe than one dimension of the stimulus, but can only vary their response in one dimension, rendering the output ambiguous
Who said that the filtering process of convolution is ‘redundancy reduction’
Barlow
Who argued about the tilt after-effect
Gibson (1937)- orientation of a line should be regarded as a simple sensory quality comparable to brightness.colour
Who tried to explain neuroanatomically spatial frequency after effects in terms of channels
Campbell and Robson (1968)- th visual system contains channels tuned to particular spatial frequencies
Who tried to explain spatial frequency after effect in terms of place coding
Von Bokesy (1929)- spatial frequenc after effect may be explained if different spatial frequencies are coded by different members of a different set of neurons, in a process involving adaption
Evidence of the distance paradox for place coded stimulus dimensions
Blakemore and Sutton (1969)-distortion is greatest for test grating lying one half-one octave either side of the adapting frequency (frequency is doubled or halved)
Study suggesting contingent after-effects may be more akin to conditioning
McCollough effect is dissipated much more quickly if the subject is repeatedly exposed to black and white gratings at the end of the adaptino period (Jones and Holding, 1975), resembling extinction of a learned response
Study on movement after efects
Gibson (1937)- relevant stimulus features appear to change during the adaption process ie movement appears slower
