Advertisement

Cortico-Cortical Dynamics and Learning during Visual Recognition: A Computational Model

  • Rajesh P. N. Rao
  • Dana H. Ballard

Abstract

A ubiquitous feature of the neocortex is the reciprocity of connections between its many distinct areas: if area A projects to area B, then area B almost invariably projects to area A [5, 22]. While the role of the feedforward projections in facilitating tasks such as visual recognition is generally well-acknowledged, the precise computational role of the corresponding feedback projections has remained relatively unclear (cf. [1] p. 23).

Keywords

Kalman Filter Receptive Field Visual Recognition Minimum Description Length Hierarchical Network 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    R. Churchland and T. Sejnowski. The Computational Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    P. Dayan, G.E. Hinton, R.M. Neal, and R.S. Zemel. The Helmholtz machine. Neural Computation, 7: 889–904, 1995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    R. Desimone and L.G. Ungerleider. Neural mechanisms of visual processing in monkeys. In F. Boller and J. Grafman, editors, Handbook of Neuropsychology, volume 2, chapter 14, pages 267–299. New York: Elsevier, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    R.J. Douglas, K.A.C. Martin, and D. Whitteridge. A canonical microcircuit for neocortex. Neural Computation, 1: 480–488, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    D.J. Felleman and D.C. Van Essen. Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 1:1–47, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J.L. Gallant, C.E. Connor, H. Drury, and D.C. Van Essen. Neural responses in monkey visual cortex during free viewing of natural scenes: Mechanisms of response suppression. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., 36: 1052, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    S. Grossberg. How does the brain build a cognitive code? Psychological Review, 87, 1980.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    G.F. Harpur and R.W. Prager. Development of low-entropy coding in a recurrent network. Network, 7: 277–284, 1996.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    E. Harth, K.P. Unnikrishnan, and A.S. Pandya. The inversion of sensory processing by feedback pathways: A model of visual cognitive functions. Science, 237: 184–187, 1987.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    R.E. Kalman. A new approach to linear filtering and prediction theory. Trans. ASME J Basic Eng., 82: 35–45, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [1]
    l] R.E. Kalman and R.S. Bucy. New results in linear filtering and prediction theory. Trans. ASME J. Basic Eng., 83: 95–108, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Kawato, H. Hayakawa, and T. Inui. A forward-inverse optics model of reciprocal connections between visual cortical areas. Network, 4: 415–422, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    P.S. Maybeck. Stochastic Models, Estimation, and Control. New York: Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    D. Mumford. On the computational architecture of the neocortex. Il. The role of cortico-cortical loops. Biological Cybernetic’s, 66: 241–251, 1992.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    B.A. Olshausen and D.J. Field. Emergence of simple-cell receptive field properties by leaming a sparse code for natural images. Nature, 381: 607–609, 1996.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    T. Poggio. A theory of how the brain might work. In Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, pages 899–910. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    R.P.N. Rao and D.H. Ballard. A class of stochastic models for invariant recognition, motion, and stereo. Technical Report 96. 1, National Resource Laboratory for the Study of Brain and Behavior, Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester, June 1996.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    R.P.N. Rao and D.H. Ballard. Dynamic model of visual recognition predicts neural response properties in the visual cortex. Neural Computation (in press). Also, Technical Report 96.2, National Resource Laboratory for the Study of Brain and Behavior, Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    R.P.N. Rao and D.H. Ballard. The visual cortex as a hierarchical predictor. Technical Report 96.4, National Resource Laboratory for the Study of Brain and Behavior, Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester, September 1996.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    R.P.N. Rao, G.J. Zelinsky, M.M. Hayhoe, and D.H. Ballard. Modeling saccadic targeting in visual search. In D. Touretzky, M. Mozer, and M. Hasselmo, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 8, pages 830–836. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    J. Rissanen. Stochastic Complexity in Statistical Inquire. Singapore: World Scientific, 1989.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    K.S. Rockland and D.N. Pandya. Laminar origins and terminations of cortical connections of the occipital lobe in the rhesus monkey. Brain Research, 179: 3–20, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    W. Softky. Could time-series prediction assist visual processing? Soc. Neuro. Abate, 21: 1499, 1995.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    S. Ullman. Sequence seeking and counterstreams: A model for bidirectional information flow in the cortex. In C. Koch and J.L. Davis, editors, Large-Scale Neuronal Theories of the Brain, pages 257–270. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    D.C. Van Essen. Functional organization of primate visual cortex. In A. Peters and E.G. Jones, editors, Cerebral Cortex, volume 3, pages 259–329. Plenum, 1985.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    D.C. Van Essen, C.H. Anderson, and B.A. Olshausen. Dynamic routing strategies in sensory, motor, and cognitive processing. In C. Koch and J.L. Davis, editors, Large-Scale Neuronal Theories of the Brain, pages 271–299. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    R.S. Zemel. A Minimum Description Length Framework for Unsupervised Learning. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations