Krubitzer & Kaas S1 S2 V1 V2 A1 MT 30 μm pia white matter Mouse Rat Cat Monkey Man Motor 109.2 ± 6.7 108.2 ±5.8 103.9 ±7.6 110.2 ±9.4 102.3 ±9.5 mean ± s.d. Somatosensory 111.9 ±6.9 107.0 ±6.7 106.6 ±7.2 109.4 ±9.4 103.7 ±5.8 Frontal 110.8 ±7.1 104.3 ±7.2 108.0 ±6.2 112.0 ±11.1 103.3 ±8.6 Temporal 110.5 ±6.5 107.7 ±9.2 113.8 ±7.3 109.8 ±10.3 107.7 ±7.5 Parietal 104.7 ±7.2 105.2 ±6.8 110.6 ±7.4 114.6 ±9.9 104.1 ±12.5 Visual 112.2 ±6.0 107.8 ±7.9 109.8 ±9.9 267.9 ±13.7 258.9 ±15.8 Mean of means 109.9 ±6.8 106.7 ±7.4 108.8 ±7.7 ------- Rockel AJ, Hiorns RW & Powell TP (1980) “The basic uniformity in structure of the neocortex,” Brain 103:221-44. receptive fields 1 0 1 2 3 mm Hubel & Wiesel 1974 cortex visual field 45º 22º . 0º Hubel 1982 7º 10º 45º 2 mm Hubel & Wiesel “Hypercolumn” ~2 mm ~2 mm after Hubel & Wiesel 1962 Re-routing experiments (ferret) visual lab of Mriganka Sur auditory 5 mm 1 mm Roe et al. 1990 Sur et al. 1988 10,000 porpoise modern human Brain weight (grams) 1,000 blue whale elephant E = 0.07 P2/3 100 crow alligator 10 1 hummingbird 0.1 0.001 Primates Bony Fish Mammals Reptiles Birds eel goldfish 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 Body weight (Kilograms) Crile & Quiring Van Essen et al. 1984 2º 1 cm Tootell et al. 1982 Half of area V1 represents the central 10º (2% of the visual field) ? Krubitzer & Kaas S1 S2 V1 V2 A1 MT Lateral view of monkey brain Medial view of monkey brain Felleman and Van Essen 1991 Cortex unfolded "Thus the hypothesis is that the cerebral cortex confers skill in deriving useful knowledge about the material and social world from the uncertain evidence of our senses, it stores this knowledge, and gives access to it when required." Barlow 1994 Finding New Associations in Sensory Data 1. Remove evidence of associations you already know about . . . . . . to facilitate detecting new ones. (1/f2 and center-surround) 2. Make available the probabilities of the features currently present . . . . . . to determine chance expectations. (-logp, adaptation) 3. Choose features that occur independently of each other in the normal environment . . . . . . to determine chance expectations or combinations of them. (lateral inhibition) 4. Choose “suspicious coincidences” as features . . . . . . to reduce redundancy and ensure appropriate generalization. (orientation selectivity) Barlow 1994 Context: Stored knowledge about environment Previous sense data Task priorities Unsatisfied appetites Model of current scene New associative knowledge What we actually see Sensory messages Compare and remove matches New information about environment This cycle can be repeated Barlow 1994, fig. 1.3 Schematic of a Kalman Filter Measurement Update (“Correct”) Time Update (“Predict”) (1) (2) and P k 1 k 1 Initial estimates for x Welch & Bishop, fig. 1.2 (3) 1 Update estimate with measurement zk x x K zk Hx k k k k Project the error covariance ahead P AP AT Q k k 1 Compute the Kalman gain K P H T HP H T R k k k Project the state ahead x Ax Bu k k 1 k 1 (2) (1) Update the error covariance P 1 K H P k k k Neighboring pixels tend to have similar values Simoncelli & Olshausen 2001 Neighboring pixels tend to have similar values natural image 1/f 2 Simoncelli & Olshausen 2001 “Whitened”: 2G or what ctr-sur does Sophie in the Arctic natural image 1/f 2 whitened image barlow_filt3.m Finding New Associations in Sensory Data (The yellow Volkswagen problem) Reward? Yes Yes Yellow Volkswagen? No Harris 1980 No Finding New Associations in Sensory Data (The yellow Volkswagen problem) sparse “yellow Volkswagen” cell dense YV “combinatorial explosion” Harris 1980 “red Ferrari” cell Finding New Associations in Sensory Data (The yellow Volkswagen problem) sparse “yellow” cell dense Y V Harris 1980 “Volkswagen” cell Finding New Associations in Sensory Data (The yellow Volkswagen problem) Yes Yellow? No Harris 1980 Reward? Reward? Yes Yes No Yes Volkswagen? No No Finding New Associations in Sensory Data (The yellow Volkswagen problem) sparse dense n k e g “y” cell s y “v” cell v o l a w Harris 1980 Y V The curve shows how statistical efficiency for detecting associations with a feature X varies with the value of a parameter defined as follows: “sparseness” x=xpxZ / where x , are the activity ratio for feature X and the average activity ratio, px is the probability of X, and Z is the number of neurons in the subset under consideration. For instance, one could identify an association with any one of the 45 possible pairs of active neurons in a subset of 10 with an efficiency of 50% provided that the neurons were active independently, the pair caused two neurons to be active, the probability of the pair occurring was 0.1, and the average fraction active was 0.2. (From Gardner-Medwin and Barlow 1994) Gardner-Medwin & Barlow 2001 What are the desirable properties of directly represented features? “. . . primitive conjunctions of active elements that actually occur often, but would be expected to occur only infrequently by chance,” that is, “suspicious coincidences” Gardner-Medwin & Barlow 2001 “Whitened”: 2G or what ctr-sur does Sophie in the Arctic Suspicious Coincidences 6 log10(#) Random 4 2 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 log10(#) 6 Line 4 p < 0.0100 2 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 sum of 9 pixels barlow_filt3.m The perfect map? A more useful map 11 12 13 K L T T M Streets Aberdeen Rd …….….C7 Academy St …….…...D9 Acorn Pk ……….…....F9 Acton St ……….…….C7 Adamian Pk …....……C9 Adams St ……….…...D9 Addison St ……..……D9 Aerial St ……….…....C8 Albermarle St ….……D8 Alfred Rd …………....E9 Allen St ……………...D9 Alpine St ………...…..C7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Longwood Ave …….L12 MBTA map Linking Features: Orientation Guzmann 1968 Striate cortex contains a map of orientation. “Hypercolumn” after Hubel & Wiesel 1962 “Space” Tootell et al. 1982 “Feature” Bosking et al. 1997 Tootell et al. 1982 Linking Features: Orientation Guzmann 1968 hierarchy gain adjustment (1024 * 768)pixels * 24 bits/pixel = 18,874,368 bits edge detection invariance a) position b) sign of contrast curvature 38 points * 2 words/point * 16 bits/word = 1,216 bits compression ratio = 15,522 Takahashi, Nowakowski & Caviness 1996 Q1 Q1 + (P12)Q2 Cumulative Output Q1 + (P12)Q2 + (((P12)P2)2)Q3 (((P12)P2)2)Q3 (P12)Q2 mitosis Q1 PVE Size 1 P1 P12 CC #1 Takahashi, Nowakowski & Caviness 1996 (P12)P2 CC #2 ((P12)P2)2 (((P12)P2)2)P3 CC #3 neuronogenetic.m 150 1 PVE volume # 0.8 Q PVE output Cumulative output 100 0.6 0.4 50 0.2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Elapsed Cell Cycles E11 E12 E13 E14 E15 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Elapsed Cell Cycles E16 Takahashi, Nowakowski & Caviness 1996 E17 12 1 mm 2 mm Chenn & Walsh 2002 Grove & Fukuchi-Shimogori 2003 Fukuchi-Shimogori & Grove 2001 gain of function (S1 smaller and shifted rostral and lateral) loss of function (S1 larger and shifted caudal and medial) Hamasaki et al. 2004