Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33651790›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2021

Learning receptive field properties of complex cells in V1.

Yanbo Lian, Ali Almasi, David B Grayden, Tatiana Kameneva, Anthony N Burkitt, Hamish Meffin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Motion perception with visual prostheses.Progress in biomedical engineering (Bristol, England) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Learning the Vector Coding of Egocentric Boundary Cells from Visual Data.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yanbo LianDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8018-9848
Ali AlmasiNational Vision Research Institute, The Australian College of Optometry, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4341-6885
David B GraydenDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5497-7234
Tatiana KamenevaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0081-8569
Anthony N BurkittDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5672-2772
Hamish MeffinDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4307-6841
The University of Melbourne · AUAustralian College of Optometry · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are two distinct classes of cells in the primary visual cortex (V1): simple cells and complex cells. One defining feature of complex cells is their spatial phase invariance; they respond strongly to oriented grating stimuli with a preferred orientation but with a wide range of spatial phases. A classical model of complete spatial phase invariance in complex cells is the energy model, in which the responses are the sum of the squared outputs of two linear spatially phase-shifted filters. However, recent experimental studies have shown that complex cells have a diverse range of spatial phase invariance and only a subset can be characterized by the energy model. While several models have been proposed to explain how complex cells could learn to be selective to orientation but invariant to spatial phase, most existing models overlook many biologically important details. We propose a biologically plausible model for complex cells that learns to pool inputs from simple cells based on the presentation of natural scene stimuli. The model is a three-layer network with rate-based neurons that describes the activities of LGN cells (layer 1), V1 simple cells (layer 2), and V1 complex cells (layer 3). The first two layers implement a recently proposed simple cell model that is biologically plausible and accounts for many experimental phenomena. The neural dynamics of the complex cells is modeled as the integration of simple cells inputs along with response normalization. Connections between LGN and simple cells are learned using Hebbian and anti-Hebbian plasticity. Connections between simple and complex cells are learned using a modified version of the Bienenstock, Cooper, and Munro (BCM) rule. Our results demonstrate that the learning rule can describe a diversity of complex cells, similar to those observed experimentally.

Indexed as

LearningAnimalsCell CommunicationGeniculate BodiesModels, NeurologicalNeuronal PlasticityNeuronsPhotic StimulationVisual Cortex

Identifiers

PMID33651790
PMCPMC7954310
OpenAlexW3134741864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.