Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37782673›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2023

Mouse visual cortex as a limited resource system that self-learns an ecologically-general representation.

Aran Nayebi, Nathan C L Kong, Chengxu Zhuang, Justin L Gardner, Anthony M Norcia, Daniel L K Yamins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Ecological Visual Processing in the Mouse.Annual review of neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Synthesizing images to map neural networks to the human brain.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Aran NayebiWu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7509-9629
Nathan C L KongWu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.
Chengxu ZhuangWu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.
Justin L GardnerWu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.
Anthony M NorciaWu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.
Daniel L K YaminsWu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies of the mouse visual system have revealed a variety of visual brain areas that are thought to support a multitude of behavioral capacities, ranging from stimulus-reward associations, to goal-directed navigation, and object-centric discriminations. However, an overall understanding of the mouse's visual cortex, and how it supports a range of behaviors, remains unknown. Here, we take a computational approach to help address these questions, providing a high-fidelity quantitative model of mouse visual cortex and identifying key structural and functional principles underlying that model's success. Structurally, we find that a comparatively shallow network structure with a low-resolution input is optimal for modeling mouse visual cortex. Our main finding is functional-that models trained with task-agnostic, self-supervised objective functions based on the concept of contrastive embeddings are much better matches to mouse cortex, than models trained on supervised objectives or alternative self-supervised methods. This result is very much unlike in primates where prior work showed that the two were roughly equivalent, naturally leading us to ask the question of why these self-supervised objectives are better matches than supervised ones in mouse. To this end, we show that the self-supervised, contrastive objective builds a general-purpose visual representation that enables the system to achieve better transfer on out-of-distribution visual scene understanding and reward-based navigation tasks. Our results suggest that mouse visual cortex is a low-resolution, shallow network that makes best use of the mouse's limited resources to create a light-weight, general-purpose visual system-in contrast to the deep, high-resolution, and more categorization-dominated visual system of primates.

Indexed as

LearningVisual CortexAnimalsBrainBrain MappingMicePrimates

Identifiers

PMID37782673
PMCPMC10569538

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.