TY - JOUR
T1 - Contrast normalization and a linear model for the directional selectivity of simple cells in cat striate cortex
AU - Tolhurst, D. J.
AU - Heeger, D. J.
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank A.F. Dean for his participation in the original experiments. This paper was written while D.J. Tolhurst was visiting Stanford. This visit was supported by an NIMH grant (MH50228) and an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship to D.J. Heeger.
PY - 1997
Y1 - 1997
N2 - Previous tests of the linearity of spatiotemporal summation in cat simple cells have compared the responses to moving sinusoidal gratings and to gratings whose contrast was modulated sinusoidally in time. In particular, since a moving grating can be expressed as a sum of modulated gratings, the response to a moving grating should be predictable (assuming linearity) from the responses to modulated gratings. However, these simple linear predictions have shown varying degrees of failure (e.g. Reid et el., 1987, 1991), depending on the directional selectivity of the neurons (Tolhurst and Dean, 1991). We demonstrate here that the failures of these linear predictions are, in fact, explained by the contrast-normalization model of Heeger (1993). We concentrate on the ratio of the measured to predicted moving grating responses. In the context of the contrast-normalization model, calculating this ratio turns out to be particularly appropriate, since the ratio is independent of the precise details of the linear front-end mechanisms ultimately responsible for directional selectivity. Hence, the contrast-normalization model can be compared quantitatively with this ratio measure, by varying only one free parameter. When account is taken both of the expansive output nonlinearity and of contrast normalization, the directional selectivity of simple cells seems to be dependent only on linear spatiotemporal filtering.
AB - Previous tests of the linearity of spatiotemporal summation in cat simple cells have compared the responses to moving sinusoidal gratings and to gratings whose contrast was modulated sinusoidally in time. In particular, since a moving grating can be expressed as a sum of modulated gratings, the response to a moving grating should be predictable (assuming linearity) from the responses to modulated gratings. However, these simple linear predictions have shown varying degrees of failure (e.g. Reid et el., 1987, 1991), depending on the directional selectivity of the neurons (Tolhurst and Dean, 1991). We demonstrate here that the failures of these linear predictions are, in fact, explained by the contrast-normalization model of Heeger (1993). We concentrate on the ratio of the measured to predicted moving grating responses. In the context of the contrast-normalization model, calculating this ratio turns out to be particularly appropriate, since the ratio is independent of the precise details of the linear front-end mechanisms ultimately responsible for directional selectivity. Hence, the contrast-normalization model can be compared quantitatively with this ratio measure, by varying only one free parameter. When account is taken both of the expansive output nonlinearity and of contrast normalization, the directional selectivity of simple cells seems to be dependent only on linear spatiotemporal filtering.
KW - Contrast normalization
KW - Directional selectivity
KW - Simple cells
KW - Visual cortex
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030824230&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030824230&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/S0952523800008725
DO - 10.1017/S0952523800008725
M3 - Article
C2 - 9057265
AN - SCOPUS:0030824230
SN - 0952-5238
VL - 14
SP - 19
EP - 25
JO - Visual neuroscience
JF - Visual neuroscience
IS - 1
ER -