Cognitive Neurodynamics

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 31–43 | Cite as

Perceptual learning with perceptions

Research Article

Abstract

In this work we present an approach to understand neuronal mechanisms underlying perceptual learning. Experimental results achieved with stimulus patterns of coherently moving dots are considered to build a simple neuronal model. The design of the model is made transparent and underlying behavioral assumptions made explicit. The key aspect of the suggested neuronal model is the learning algorithm used: We evaluated an implementation of Hebbian learning and are thus able to provide a straight-forward model capable to explain the neuronal dynamics underlying perceptual learning. Moreover, the simulation results suggest a very simple explanation for the aspect of “sub-threshold” learning (Watanabe et al. in Nature 413:844–884, 2001) as well as the relearning of motion discrimination after damage to primary visual cortex as recently reported (Huxlin et al. in J Neurosci 29:3981–3991, 2009) and at least indicate that perceptual learning might only occur when accompanied by conscious percepts.

Keywords

Perceptual learning Hebb Neurodynamical model Perception 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).

Supplementary material

11571_2010_9134_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (57 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 57 kb)

References

  1. Abeles A (1991) Corticonics. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball K, Sekuler R (1987) Direction-specific improvement in motion discrimintation. Vis Res 27:954–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brunel N, Wang X-J (2001) Effects of neuromodulation in a cortical network model of object working memory dominated by recurrent inhibition. J Comput Neurosci 11(1):63–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corkin S (2002) What’s new with the amnesic patient H.M.? Nat Rev Neurosci 3:153–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deco G, Rolls ET, Horwitz B (2004) What and where in visual working memory: a computational neurodynamical perspective for integrating fMRI and single-neuron data. J Cogn Neurosci 16:683–701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dreyfus HL (1992) What computers still can’t do. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Furlan M, Schwarzbach J (2009) Attention increases input gain when processing motion coherence. Perception 38 ECVP abstract supplement, p 19Google Scholar
  8. Furman M, Wang X-J (2008) Similarity effect and optimal control of multiple-choice decision making. Neuron 60:1153–1168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldstein BE (2001) Wahrnehmungsphysiologie, 2nd edn. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  10. Graupner M, Brunel N (2007) STDP in a bistabel synapse model based on CaMKII and associated signalling pathways. PLOS Comput Biol 3:2299–2323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hansel C, Artola A, Singer W (1996) Different threshold levels of postsyanptic [Ca 2+]i have to be reached to induce LTP and LTD in neocortical pyramidal cells. J Physiol (Paris) 90:317–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hebb DO (1949) The organization of behavior. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Hellekalek P (1998) Good random number generators are (not so) easy to find. Math Comput Simul 46:485–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huxlin KR, Martin T, Kelly K, Riley M, Friedmana DI, Burgin WS, Hayhoe M (2009) Perceptual relearning of complex visual motion after v1 damage in humans. J Neurosci 29:3981–3991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Linden DJ (1994) Long-term synaptic depression in the mamalian brain. Neuron 12:457–472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pilly PK, Grossberg S, Seitz AR (2010) Low-level sensory plasticity during task-irrelevant perceptual learning: evidence from conventional and double training procedures. Vis Res 50:424–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Seitz AR, Watanabe T (2003) Is subliminal learning really passive? Nature 422, 36Google Scholar
  18. Seitz A, Watanabe T (2005) A unified model for perceptual learning. Trends Cogn Sci 9:329–334Google Scholar
  19. Seitz AR, Watanabe T (2009) The phenomenon of task-irrelevant perceptual learning. Vis Res 49:2604–2610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Seitz A, Lefebvre C, Watanabe T, Jolicoeur P (2005) Requirement for high-level processing in subliminal learning. Curr Biol 15:R753–R755 Google Scholar
  21. Stemme A, Deco G (2008) Neuronal and cortical dynamical mechanisms underlying brain functions, chap 12. Elsevier handbook of cognitive science, pp 221–242Google Scholar
  22. Stemme A, Deco G, Busch A, Schneider WX (2005) Neurons and the synaptic basis of the fMRI signal associated with cognitive flexibility. NeuroImage 26/2:454–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stemme A, Deco G, Busch A (2007) The neurodynamics underlying attentional control in set shifting tasks. Cogn Neurodyn 1/3:249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stemme A, Deco G, Lang E, Rosengarth K (in preparation) The role of attention in perceptual learningGoogle Scholar
  25. Szabo M, Deco G, Fusi S, Giudice PD, Mattia M, Stetter M (2006) Learning to attend: modelling the shaping of selectivity in infero-temporal cortex in a categorization task. Biol Cybern 94:351–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tsushima Y, Sasak iY, Watanabe T (2006) Greater disruption due to failure of inhibitory control on an ambiguous distractor. Science 314:1786–1788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tsushima Y, Seitz AR, Watanabe T (2008) Task-irrelevant learning occurs only when the irrelevant feature is weak. Curr Biol 12:16–17Google Scholar
  28. Vaina LM, Belliveau JW, Roziers EBD, Zeffiro TA (1998) Neural systems underlying learning and representation of global motion. Proc Nat Acad Sci Neurobiol 95:12657–12662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Watanabe T, Nanez JE, Sasaki Y (2001) Perceptual learning without perceptions. Nature 413:844–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yotsumoto Y, Watanabe T (2008) Defining a link between perceptual learning and attention. PLOS Biol 6:1623–1626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yotsumoto Y, Watanabe T, Sasaki Y (2008) Different dynamics of performance and brain activation in the time course of perceptual learning. Neuron 57:827–833PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zihl J, von Cramon D, Mai N (1983) Selective disturbance of movement vision after bilateral brain damage. Brain 106(Pt 2):313–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computational Intelligence and Machine Learning - CIML, Institute for BiophysicsUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  2. 2.Theoretical and Computational Neuroscience, Unit for Brain and CognitionUniversitat Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations