Responses of visual cells in cat superior colliculus to relative pattern movement

Mandl, G.

doi:10.1016/0042-6989(85)90119-1

Cited by 25 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a recent paper by Mandl (1984) it was reported that some cells in the superior colliculus of the cat seem to respond to the relative velocity between a test stimulus and its background rather than to the retinal velocity of the test stimulus. Consequently, for 6 cells that all responded robustly to kinematograms in the manner illustrated in Figs.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Deep tectal cells in pigeons respond to kinematograms

1988

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deep tectal neurons in pigeons respond selectively to moving visual stimuli, and are inhibited by large background patterns moved in-phase with these stimuli. In this investigation we demonstrate that these same deep tectal neurons respond equally well to kinematograms as they do to traditional luminance contrast stimuli typically employed in visual experiments. Computer generated kinematograms, the motion domain equivalents of random dot stereograms, were used as stimuli in these experiments. These kinematograms, where a small centrally located set of random dots is moved coherently in one direction while the remaining dots are moved in a different direction, thus constitute a pure motion stimulus where the stimulus form is only visible in the dynamic pattern, but does not exist on any single frame. Both 'object' configured and 'hole' configured kinematograms were employed; the former appearing as regions of texture moving over, or in front of, the background texture, while the latter appear as windows through which a more distant textured surface is revealed. Extracellular recordings from isolated deep tectal cells showed that all units responded in a very similar manner whether the stimulus was an 'object' configured kinematogram or the more traditional luminance contrast variety. This similarity included directional selectivity, the in-phase inhibition anti-phase facilitation effect, and sensitivity to opposed motion independent of direction. However, when the kinematograms were configured as 'holes' none of the units tested responded to these stimuli. The significance of these observations for tectal functioning, image segmentation through motion and animal camouflage is discussed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Deep tectal cells in pigeons respond to kinematograms

1988

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a wide range of species visual interneurons have been found which preferentially respond to small objects in their receptive field (see for instance: [1]–[5] cat, [6]–[8] monkey, [9]–[11] pigeon, [12] toad, [13], [14] locust, [15] hoverfly, [16], [17] hawkmoth, [18]–[20] dragonfly, [21], [22] blowfly). These cells differ in the size of their receptive fields and the preferred size of the objects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distributed Dendritic Processing Facilitates Object Detection: A Computational Analysis on the Visual System of the Fly

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDetecting objects is an important task when moving through a natural environment. Flies, for example, may land on salient objects or may avoid collisions with them. The neuronal ensemble of Figure Detection cells (FD-cells) in the visual system of the fly is likely to be involved in controlling these behaviours, as these cells are more sensitive to objects than to extended background structures. Until now the computations in the presynaptic neuronal network of FD-cells and, in particular, the functional significance of the experimentally established distributed dendritic processing of excitatory and inhibitory inputs is not understood.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe use model simulations to analyse the neuronal computations responsible for the preference of FD-cells for small objects. We employed a new modelling approach which allowed us to account for the spatial spread of electrical signals in the dendrites while avoiding detailed compartmental modelling. The models are based on available physiological and anatomical data. Three models were tested each implementing an inhibitory neural circuit, but differing by the spatial arrangement of the inhibitory interaction. Parameter optimisation with an evolutionary algorithm revealed that only distributed dendritic processing satisfies the constraints arising from electrophysiological experiments. In contrast to a direct dendro-dendritic inhibition of the FD-cell (Direct Distributed Inhibition model), an inhibition of its presynaptic retinotopic elements (Indirect Distributed Inhibition model) requires smaller changes in input resistance in the inhibited neurons during visual stimulation.Conclusions/SignificanceDistributed dendritic inhibition of retinotopic elements as implemented in our Indirect Distributed Inhibition model is the most plausible wiring scheme for the neuronal circuit of FD-cells. This microcircuit is computationally similar to lateral inhibition between the retinotopic elements. Hence, distributed inhibition might be an alternative explanation of perceptual phenomena currently explained by lateral inhibition networks.

show abstract

“…With respect to the first question, cells sensitive to the relative movements of stimuli have been found in many areas of the brain, including the superior colliculus (Mandl, 1985), Area V1 (Bridgeman, 1972 (Orban, Gulyas, & Spileers, 1988), the MT area (e. g. , Allman et al , 1985), the MST area Tanaka et al , 1986), and Area 7 (e. g. , Motter & Mountcastle, 1981;Sakata, Shibutani, & Tsurugai, 1986). The seemingly ubiquitous presence of such detectors is consistent with the importance of relative motion information for many visual functions (for reviews, see Nakayama, 1985;Regan, 1986) Cutting, 1979Cutting, , 1980Ramachandran & Anstis, 1985, 1986b.…”

Section: Neural Measurements For Motion Correspondence Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The how and why of what went where in apparent motion: Modeling solutions to the motion correspondence problem.

Dawson

1991

Psychological Review

167

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:A model that is capable of maintaining the identities of individuated elements as they move is described. It solves a particular problem of underdetermination, the motion correspondence problem, by simultaneously applying 3 constraints: the nearest neighbor principle, the relative velocity principle, and the element integrity principle. The model generates the same correspondence solutions as does the human visual system for a variety of displays, and many of its properties are consistent with what is known about the physiological mechanisms underlying human motion perception. The model can also be viewed as a proposal of how the identities of attentional tags are maintained by visual cognition, and thus it can be differentiated from a system that serves merely to detect movement. PDF Image: PDF Full Text Database: PsycARTICLESThe How Nevin-Meadows, Don Schopflocher, and Nancy Digdon at the University of Alberta. Comments from Dennis Proffitt and an anonymous reviewer on an earlier version of the manuscript were also extremely useful. I would like to acknowledge Brian Harder, who died during the past year. He began work on this research with me and performed numerous simulation runs and prepared many of the figures.Correspondence may be addressed to: Michael R. W. Dawson, Department of Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9 Canada. Electronic mail may be sent to mike@psych.ualberta.ca.Many researchers have described the goal of visual perception as the construction of useful representations about the world (e. g. , Horn, 1986;Marr, 1976Marr, , 1982Ullman, 1979). These representations are derived from the information projected from a three-dimensional visual world (the distal stimulus) onto an essentially twodimensional surface of light receptors in the eyes. The interpretation of the distal stimulus must be determined from the resulting pattern of retinal stimulation (the proximal stimulus).However, the information represented in the proximal stimulus cannot, by itself, completely determine the nature of the distal stimulus. This is because the proximal stimulus does not preserve the full dimensionality of the physical world. The mapping from three-dimensional patterns to two-dimensional patterns is a many-to-one mapping and is not uniquely invertible (see Gregory, 1970;Horn, 1986;Marr, 1982;Richards, 1988). Retinal stimulation geometrically underdetermines interpretations of the physical world. 1Underdetermination can also result because the information available from local measurements of the proximal stimulus is consistent with a large number of different global interpretations. Alone, the local measurements are not sufficient to determine which global interpretation is correct. One example of this is the aperture problem: local measurements of a contour's movement do not by themselves specify the contour's true velocity (e. g. , Hildreth, 1983;Marr & Ullman, 1981). Another example is the stereo correspondence problem: local measurements do not by themselves specify which proxim...

show abstract

Responses of visual cells in cat superior colliculus to relative pattern movement

Cited by 25 publications

References 70 publications

Deep tectal cells in pigeons respond to kinematograms

Deep tectal cells in pigeons respond to kinematograms

Distributed Dendritic Processing Facilitates Object Detection: A Computational Analysis on the Visual System of the Fly

The how and why of what went where in apparent motion: Modeling solutions to the motion correspondence problem.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About