ArticlePloS one2017
Topographic Independent Component Analysis reveals random scrambling of orientation in visual space.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Turing Test for artificial nets devoted to vision.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Sub-Optimality of the Early Visual System Explained Through Biologically Plausible Plasticity.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neurons at primary visual cortex (V1) in humans and other species are edge filters organized in orientation maps. In these maps, neurons with similar orientation preference are clustered together in iso-orientation domains. These maps have two fundamental properties: (1) retinotopy, i.e. correspondence between displacements at the image space and displacements at the cortical surface, and (2) a trade-off between good coverage of the visual field with all orientations and continuity of iso-orientation domains in the cortical space. There is an active debate on the origin of these locally continuous maps. While most of the existing descriptions take purely geometric/mechanistic approaches which disregard the network function, a clear exception to this trend in the literature is the original approach of Hyvärinen and Hoyer based on infomax and Topographic Independent Component Analysis (TICA). Although TICA successfully addresses a number of other properties of V1 simple and complex cells, in this work we question the validity of the orientation maps obtained from TICA. We argue that the maps predicted by TICA can be analyzed in the retinal space, and when doing so, it is apparent that they lack the required continuity and retinotopy. Here we show that in the orientation maps reported in the TICA literature it is easy to find examples of violation of the continuity between similarly tuned mechanisms in the retinal space, which suggest a random scrambling incompatible with the maps in primates. The new experiments in the retinal space presented here confirm this guess: TICA basis vectors actually follow a random salt-and-pepper organization back in the image space. Therefore, the interesting clusters found in the TICA topology cannot be interpreted as the actual cortical orientation maps found in cats, primates or humans. In conclusion, Topographic ICA does not reproduce cortical orientation maps.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.