M. Cross and P. Hohenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.
:851 (1993).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
J. P. Gollub and J. S. Langer, Rev. Mod. Phys.
:S396 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
E. R. Kandel, J. H. Schwartz, and T. M. Jessell, Principles of Neural Science (Appleton & Lange, Norwalk, CT, 1991).
D. H. Hubel and T. N. Wiesel, J. Physiol.
:215 (1962).Google Scholar
G. G. Blasdel and G. Salama, Nature
:579 (1986).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
H. Y. Lee, M. Yahyanejad, and M. Kardar, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA
:16036 (2003).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
N. V. Swindale, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B
:211 (1982).ADSGoogle Scholar
N. V. Swindale, Biol. Cybern.
:217 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
F. Wolf and T. Geisel, Nature
:73 (1998).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
Constant stirring by sufficiently strong external noise can also lead to dynamic creation and annihilation of pinwheels, but our focus is on evolving fields where the only randomness is in the choice of initial conditions.
A. A. Koulakov and D. B. Chklovskii, Neuron
:519 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
F. Wolf, PhD thesis, Univeritt Göttingen, 2000.
In fact (as we also found in our analysis of monkey map), not all orientations are equally represented. This type of anisotropy indicates the absence of any form of rotation symmetry, and should not be confused with the distinction between full and joint rotation symmetries which is the subject of this article. The former is compatible with rainbow patterns and does not appear to play a role in the stability of pinwheels. We verified this explicitly by numerical simulations in models with a preference for the horizontal direction.
J. B. Swift and P. C. Hohenberg, Phys. Rev. A
:319 (1977).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
M. C. Cross and P. C. Hohenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.
:851 (1993).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
W. H. Bosking, Y. Zhang, B. Schofield, and D. Fitzpatrick, J. Neurosci.
:2112 (1997).Google Scholar
P. C. Bressloff et al.
, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B
:299 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The vectorial representation may in fact be appropriate for a more detailed description of cortical maps which includes other aspects of visual input. For example, it is known that V1 cells respond also to the motion of oriented bars. Including the direction of motion leads to a more vectorial representation.
D. Whitney, H. C. Goltz, C. G. Thomas, J. S. Gati, R. S. Menon, and M. A. Goodale, Science
:878 (2003).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
B. T. Halperin, in Physics of Defects, Les Houches Session XXXV, 1980, R. Balian, M. Klèman, and J.-P. Poirir, eds. (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1981), pp. 813–857.
M. Sigman, G. A. Cecchi, C. D. Gilbert, and M. O. Magnasco, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
:1935 (2001).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
D. J. Field, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A
:2379 (1987).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
D. Ruderman and W. Bialek, Phys. Rev. Lett.
:814 (1994).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
A. S. Monin and A. M. Yaglom, Statistical Mechanics, Vol. 2 (MIT, Cambridge, 1971), pp. 1–58.
I. Arad et al
, Phys. Rev. Lett.
:5330 (1998).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
J. H. van Hateren and A. Van der Schaaf, Proc. R. Soc. London B
:359 (1998).Google Scholar
W. T. Freeman and E. H. Adelson, IEEE Trans. Patt. Anal. Mach. Intell.
:891 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
E. Switkes, M. J. Mayer, and J. A. Sloan, Vision Res.
:1393 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
J. D. Pettigrew, T. Nikara, and P. O. Bishop, Exp. Brain Res.
:373 (1968).Google Scholar
B. Chapman and T. Bonhoeffer, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
:2609 (1998).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
V. Dragoi, C. M. Turch, and M. Sur, Neuron
:1181 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
We confirmed that the spectra become more isotropic as we average over more rotated images. Note that with a matrix S
αβ obtained from an orientation field, there is no a priori reason for the cross correlations S
lt(k) and S
tl(k) to be zero. We do find that these correlations are small, and also decrease as we average over rotated images.
Additional pictures and data are available online from http://www.mit.edu/∼kardar/research/transversality/ModernArt/.
C. D. Gilbert and T. N. Wiesel, J. Neurosci.
:2432 (1989).Google Scholar
R. Malach, Y. Amir, M. Harel, and A. Grinvald, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
:10469 (1993).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
J. I. Nelson and B. J. Frost, Exp. Brain Res.
:54 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
P. Buzás, U. T. Eysel, P. Adorján, and Z. F. Kisvárday, J. Comp. Neurol.
:259 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Z. Kourtzi et al.
:333 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
S. B. Laughlin, Z. Naturf.
:910 (1981).Google Scholar
J. J. Atick and A. N. Redlich, Neural Comput.
:308 (1990).Google Scholar
J. J. Atick, Network: Comput. Neural Sys.
:213 (1992).CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
Y. Dan, J. J. Atick, and R. C. Reid, J. Neurosci.
:3351 (1996).Google Scholar
W. Bialek, D. L. Ruderman, and A. Zee, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, R. P. Lippman, ed. (Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1991), p. 363.
M. Kardar and A. Zee, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
:15894 (2002).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
For a small patch of the cortex, we can assume a locally linear relation between the visual and cortical coordinates, X and x. At a global level, the map is certainly non-linear. The non-linearity could itself impose rotations in the coordinate frames which complicate the notion of colinearity. Such complications are ignored in the present analysis.
C. E. Shannon and W. Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication (University of Illinois Press, Urbaba, IL, 1962).