Visual surround suppression at the neural and perceptual levels

Li, Yang; Dai, Weifeng; Wang, Tian; Wu, Yujie; Dou, Fei; Xing, Dajun

doi:10.1007/s11571-023-10027-3

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 171 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The center–surround suppression may be closely related to information received by neurons, including from feedforward, horizontal, and feedback connections [ 32 , 33 ]. Indeed, the OT is a multi-stratified structure and contains 15 alternating cell and fiber layers [ 34 , 35 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Nonlinear Spatial Integrations on Encoding Contrasting Stimuli of Tectal Neurons

Huang,

Hu,

Zhao

et al. 2024

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animals detect targets using a variety of visual cues, with the visual salience of these cues determining which environmental features receive priority attention and further processing. Surround modulation plays a crucial role in generating visual saliency, which has been extensively studied in avian tectal neurons. Recent work has reported that the suppression of tectal neurons induced by motion contrasting stimulus is stronger than that by luminance contrasting stimulus. However, the underlying mechanism remains poorly understood. In this study, we built a computational model (called Generalized Linear-Dynamic Modulation) which incorporates independent nonlinear tuning mechanisms for excitatory and inhibitory inputs. This model aims to describe how tectal neurons encode contrasting stimuli. The results showed that: (1) The dynamic nonlinear integration structure substantially improved the accuracy (significant difference (p < 0.001, paired t-test) in the goodness of fit between the two models) of the predicted responses to contrasting stimuli, verifying the nonlinear processing performed by tectal neurons. (2) The modulation difference between luminance and motion contrasting stimuli emerged from the predicted response by the full model but not by that with only excitatory synaptic input (spatial luminance: 89 ± 2.8% (GL_DM) vs. 87 ± 2.1% (GL_DMexc); motion contrasting stimuli: 87 ± 1.7% (GL_DM) vs. 83 ± 2.2% (GL_DMexc)). These results validate the proposed model and further suggest the role of dynamic nonlinear spatial integrations in contextual visual information processing, especially in spatial integration, which is important for object detection performed by birds.

show abstract