Estimating receptive fields from responses to natural stimuli with asymmetric intensity distributions

PLoS ONE

Volumn 3, Issue 8, 2008, Pages

  Lesica, Nicholas A ^a,b,e   Ishii, Toshiyuki ^a,c   Stanley, Garrett B ^d   Hosoya, Toshihiko ^a  

^a RIKEN BRAIN SCIENCE INSTITUTE   (Japan)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c TOHO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^d GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^e Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY SYSTEM; BRAIN ASYMMETRY; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; RECEPTIVE FIELD; RETINA GANGLION CELL; SENSORY NERVE CELL; STIMULUS RESPONSE; VISUAL STIMULATION; VISUAL SYSTEM; ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COLOR VISION; DEPTH PERCEPTION; NERVE TRACT; PHYSIOLOGY; STIMULATION; VISION;

CELL SURFACE RECEPTOR;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ANIMALS; COLOR VISION; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; NEURAL PATHWAYS; PHYSICAL STIMULATION; RECEPTORS, CELL SURFACE; RETINAL GANGLION CELLS; SPACE PERCEPTION; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 52449086105     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003060     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Dan Y, Atick JJ, Reid RC (1996) Efficient coding of natural scenes in the lateral geniculate nucleus: experimental test of a computational theory. J Neurosci 16: 3351-3362.
2. Vinje WE, Gallant JL. (2000) Sparse coding and decorrelation in primary visual cortex during natural vision. Science 287: 1273-1276.
3. Touryan J, Felsen G, Dan Y (2005) Spatial structure of complex cell receptive fields measured with natural images. Neuron 45: 781-791.
4. Felsen G, Touryan J, Han F, Dan Y (2005) Cortical sensitivity to visual features in natural scenes. PLoS Biol 3: e342.
5. Rieke F, Bodnar DA, Bialek W (1995) Naturalistic stimuli increase the rate and efficiency of information transmission by primary auditory afferents. Proc Biol Sci 262: 259-265.
6. Escabi MA, Miller LM, Read HL, Schreiner CE (2003) Naturalistic auditory contrast improves spectrotemporal coding in the cat inferior colliculus. J Neurosci 25: 11489-11504.
7. Hsu A, Woolley SM, Fremouw TE, Theunissen FE (2004) Modulation power and phase spectrum of natural sounds enhance neural encoding performed by single auditory neurons. J Neurosci 24: 9201-9211.
8. Garcia-Lazaro JA, Ahmed B, Schnupp JW (2006) Tuning to natural stimulus dynamics in primary auditory cortex. Curr Biol 16: 264-271.
9. Theunissen FE, Sen K, Doupe AJ (2000) Spectral-temporal receptive fields of nonlinear auditory neurons obtained using natural sounds. J Neurosci 20: 2315-2331.
10. Klug A, Bauer EE, Hanson JT, Hurley L, Meitzen J, Pollak GD (2002) Response selectivity for species-specific calls in the inferior colliculus of Mexican free-tailed bats is generated by inhibition. J Neurophysiol 88: 1941-1954.
11. David SV, Vinje WE, Gallant JL (2004) Natural stimulus statistics alter the receptive field structure of v1 neurons. J Neurosci 24: 6991-7006.
12. Field DJ (1987) Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response properties of cortical cells. J Opt Soc Am A 4: 2379-2394.
13. Ruderman DL, Bialek W (1994) Statistics of natural images: Scaling in the woods. Phys Rev Lett 73: 814-817.
14. Dong DW, Atick JJ (1995) Statistics of Natural Time-Varying Images. Network-Computation in Neural Systems 6: 345-358.
15. Singh NC, Theunissen FE (2003) Modulation spectra of natural sounds and ethological theories of auditory processing. J Acoust Soc Am 114: 3394-3411.
16. van Hateren JH (1997) Processing of natural time series of intensities by the visual system of die blowfly. Vision Res 37: 3407-3416.
17. Thomson MG (1999) Visual coding and the phase structure of natural scenes. Network 10: 123-132.
18. Schwartz O, Pillow JW, Rust NC, Simoncelli EP (2006) Spike-triggered neural characterization. J Vis 6: 484-507.
19. Bussgang JJ (1952) Crosscorrelation functions of amplitude distorted Gaussian signals. MIT Res Lab Elec Tech Rep. pp 1-14.
20. Chichilnisky EJ (2001) A simple white noise analysis of neuronal light responses. Network 12: 199-213.
21. Paninski L (2003) Convergence properties of three spike-triggered analysis techniques. Network 14: 437-464.
22. Simoncelli EP, Paninski L, Pillow J, Schwartz O (2003) Characterization of neural responses with stochastic stimuli. In: The Cognitive Neurosciences. MIT Press. pp.
23. Theunissen FE, David SV, Singh NC, Hsu A, Vinje WE, Gallant JL (2001) Estimating spatio-temporal receptive fields of auditory and visual neurons from their responses to natural stimuli. Network 12: 289-316.
24. Willmore B, Smyth D (2003) Methods for first-order kernel estimation: simple-cell receptive fields from responses to natural scenes. Network 14: 553-577.
25. David SV, Gallant JL (2005) Predicting neuronal responses during natural vision. Network 16: 239-260.
26. Christianson GB, Sahani M, Linden JF (2008) The consequences of response nonlinearities for interpretation of spectrotemporal receptive fields. J Neurosci 28: 446-455.
27. Ringach DL, Hawken MJ, Shapley R (2002) Receptive field structure of neurons in monkey primary visual cortex revealed by stimulation with natural-image, sequences. J Vis 2: 12-24.
28. Machens CK, Wehr MS, Zador AM (2004) Linearity of cortical receptive fields measured with natural sounds. J Neurosci 24: 1089-1100.
29. Smyth D, Willmore B, Baker GE, Thompson ID, Tolhurst DJ (2003) the receptive-field organization of simple cells in primary visual cortex of ferrets under natural scene stimulation. J Neurosci 23: 4746-4759.
30. Lesica NA, Stanley GB (2006) Decoupling functional mechanisms of adaptive encoding. Network 17: 43-60.
31. Lesica NA, Jin J, Weng C, Yeh CI, Butts DA, Stanley GB, Alonso JM (2007) Adaptation to Stimulus Contrast and Correlations during Natural Visual Stimulation. Neuron 55: 479-491.
32. David SV, Mesgarani N, Shamma SA (2007) Estimating sparse spectro-temporal receptive fields with natural stimuli. Network 18: 191-212.
33. van Hateren JH, Ruderman DL (1998) Independent component analysis of natural image sequences yields spatio-temporal filters similar to simple cells in primary visual cortex. Proc Biol Sci 265: 2315-2320.
34. Hosoya T, Baccus SA, Meister M (2005) Dynamic predictive coding by the retina. Nature 436: 71-77.
35. Ringach DL (2004) Mapping receptive fields in primary visual cortex. J Physiol 558: 717-728.
36. Brenner N, Bialek W, de Ruyter van SR (2000) Adaptive resealing maximizes information transmission. Neuron 26: 695-702.
37. Rust NC, Schwartz O, Movshon JA, Simoncelli EP (2005) Spatiotemporal elements of macaque v1 receptive fields. Neuron 46: 945-956.
38. Meister M, Berry MJ (1999) The neural code of the retina. Neuron 22: 435-450.
39. Clifford CW, Webster MA, Stanley GB, Stocker AA, Kohn A, Sharpee TO, Schwartz O (2007) Visual adaptation: Neural, psychological and computational aspects. Vision Res 47: 3125-3131.
40. Lesica NA, Stanley GB (2005) Improved tracking of time-varying encoding properties of visual neurons by extended recursive least-squares, IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 13: 194-200.
41. Lesica NA, Grothe B (2008) Efficient temporal processing of naturalistic sounds. PLoS ONE 3: e1655.
42. Sahani M, Linden JF (2003) Evidence Optimization Techniques for Estimating Stimulus-Response Functions. In: Becker S, Thrun S, Obermayer K, eds. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp 317-324.
43. Sharpee T, Rust NC, Bialek W (2004) Analyzing neural responses to natural signals: maximally informative dimensions. Neural Comput 16: 223-250.
44. Sharpee TO, Sugihara H, Kurgansky AV, Rebrik SP, Stryker MP, Miller KD (2006) Adaptive filtering enhances information transmission in visual cortex. Nature 439: 936-942.
45. Paninski L (2004) Maximum likelihood estimation of cascade point-process neural encoding models. Network 15: 243-262.
46. Pillow JW, Paninski L, Uzzell VJ, Simoncelli EP, Chichilnisky EJ (2005) Prediction and decoding of retinal ganglion cell responses with a probabilistic spiking model. J Neurosci 25: 11003-11013.