ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Computations that sustain neural feature selectivity across processing stages.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biological visual systems are celebrated for their ability to reliably and precisely recognize objects. However, the specific neural mechanisms responsible for this capability remain largely elusive. In this study, we investigate neural responses in the visual areas V1, V2, and V4 of the brain to natural stimuli using a framework that includes quadratic computations in order to capture local recurrent interactions, both excitatory and suppressive. We find that these quadratic computations and specific coordination between their elements strongly increase both the predictive power of the model and the neural selectivity to natural stimuli. Particularly important were (i) coordination between excitatory and suppressive features to represent mutually exclusive hypotheses regarding incoming stimuli, such as orthogonal orientations or opposing motion directions in area V4, (ii) balance in the contribution of excitatory and suppressive components and its maintenance at similar levels across stages of processing, and (iii) refinement of feature selectivity between stages, with earlier stages representing broader category of inputs. Overall, this work describes how the brain could use multiple nonlinear mechanisms to increase selectivity of neural responses to natural stimuli.
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.