Surround suppression

Last updated

Surround suppression is where the relative firing rate of a neuron may under certain conditions decrease when a particular stimulus is enlarged. It has been observed in electrophysiology studies of the brain and has been noted in many sensory neurons, most notably in the early visual system. Surround suppression is defined as a reduction in the activity of a neuron in response to a stimulus outside its classical receptive field.

Contents

The necessary functional connections with other neurons influenced by stimulation outside a particular area and by dynamic processes in general, and the absence of a theoretical description of a system state to be treated as a baseline, deprive the term "classical receptive field" of functional meaning. [1] The descriptor "surround suppression" suffers from a similar problem, as the activities of neurons in the "surround" of the "classical receptive field are similarly determined by connectivities and processes involving neurons beyond it.) This nonlinear effect is one of many that reveals the complexity of biological sensory systems, and the connections of properties of neurons that may cause this effect (or its opposite) are still being studied. The characteristics, mechanisms, and perceptual consequences of this phenomenon are of interest to many communities, including neurobiology, computational neuroscience, psychology, and computer vision.

Background

Stimulation of the surround with the classical receptive field induces a response that is smaller than stimulation of the classical receptive field alone. Stimulation of the surround only has no effect. NCRF redone.png
Stimulation of the surround with the classical receptive field induces a response that is smaller than stimulation of the classical receptive field alone. Stimulation of the surround only has no effect.

The classical model of early vision presumes that each neuron responds independently to a specific stimulus in a localized area of the visual field. (According to Carandini et al (2005), this computational model, which may be fit to various datasets, "degrade[s] quickly if we change almost any aspect of the test stimulus.") The stimulus and corresponding location in the visual field are collectively called the classical receptive field. However, not all effects can be explained by via ad hoc independent filters. Surround suppression is one of an infinite number of possible effects in which neurons do not behave according to the classical model. These effects are collectively called non-classical receptive field effects, and have recently become a substantial research area in vision and other sensory systems.

During surround suppression, neurons are inhibited by a stimulus outside their classical receptive field, in an area loosely termed deemed the 'surround.'

Characteristics: effects on neural responses

Electrophysiology studies

Electrophysiology studies are used to characterize the surround suppression effect. Vision researchers that record neural activity in the primary visual cortex (V1) have seen that spike rates, or neural responses, can be suppressed in as many as 90% of neurons [2] [3] by stimuli outside of their surround. In these cells, the spike rates may be reduced by as much as 70%. [4]

Stimulus and attention dependence

Suppression often increases with stimulus size beyond the classical receptive field. Surround suppression curve.png
Suppression often increases with stimulus size beyond the classical receptive field.

The suppressive effect is often dependent on the contrast, orientation, and direction of motion of the stimulus stimulating the surround. These properties are highly dependent on the brain area and the individual neuron being studied. In MT, for instance, cells can be sensitive to the direction and velocity of stimuli up to 50 to 100 times the area of their classical receptive fields. [5] The statistical properties of the stimuli used to probe these neurons affect the properties of the surround as well. Because these areas are so highly interconnected, stimulation of one cell can affect the response properties of other cells, and therefore researchers have become increasingly aware of the choice of stimuli they use in these experiments. In addition to studies with simple stimuli (dots, bars, sinusoidal gratings), [4] [6] [7] more recent studies have used more realistic stimuli (natural scenes) to study these effects. [8] Stimuli that better represent natural scenes tend to induce higher levels of suppression, indicating this effect is tied closely to the properties of natural scenes such as ideas and local context.

Surround suppression is also modulated by attention. By training monkeys to attend to certain areas of their visual field, researchers have studied how directed attention can enhance the suppressive effects of stimuli surrounding the area of attention. [9] Similar perceptual studies haven’t been performed on human subjects as well.

Systems involved

Surround suppression was formally discovered in the visual pathway, which has been noticed first by Hubel and Wiesel [6] while mapping receptive fields. The earliest parts of the visual pathway: the retina, Lateral Geniculate Nucleus (LGN), and primary visual cortex (V1) are among the most well-studied. Surround suppression has been studied in later areas as well, including V2, V3, V4, [3] and MT. [10]

Surround suppression has also been seen in sensory systems other than vision. One example in somatosensation is surround suppression in the barrel cortex of mice, in which bending one whisker can suppress the response of a neuron responding to a whisker nearby. [11] It has even been seen in the frequency response properties of electoreception in electric fish. [12]

Biological mechanisms

The biological mechanisms behind surround suppression are not known. [11]

The differences between lateral, feedforward, and recurrent connections Recurrent connections with stream direction.png
The differences between lateral, feedforward, and recurrent connections

Several theories have been proposed for the biological basis of this effect. Based on the diversity of the stimulus characteristics that cause this effect and the variety of responses that are generated, it seems that many mechanisms may be at play. The most known theory is that it is almost a trial and deduction in your brain.

Lateral connections

Lateral connections are connections between neurons in the same layer. There are many of these connections in all areas of the visual system, which means that a neuron representing one piece of the visual field can influence a neuron representing another piece. Even within lateral connections, there are potentially different mechanisms at play. Monocular mechanisms, requiring stimulation in only one eye, may drive this effect with stimuli with high spatial frequency. When the stimulus frequency is lowered, however, binocular mechanisms come into play, where neurons from different eyes may suppress each other. [13] Model based on this idea have been shown to reproduce surround suppressive effects.

Recurrent feedback

It has been posited that lateral connections are too slow and cover too little of the visual field to fully explain surround suppression. [14] Feedback from higher areas may explain the discrepancies seen in mechanism for surround suppression based purely on lateral connections. There is evidence that inactivation of higher order areas results in reduced strength of surround suppression. [14] At least one model of excitatory connections from higher levels has been formed in the effort to more fully explain surround suppression. [15] However, recurrent feedback is difficult to determine using electrophysiology, and the potential mechanisms at play are not as well studied as feedforward or lateral connections.

Advantages

Surround suppression behavior (and its opposite) gives the sensory system several advantages from both a perceptual and information theory standpoint.

Perceptual advantages

Surround suppression likely participates in context-dependent perceptual tasks. Some specific tasks in which surround suppression may aid include:

These tasks require the use of inputs over wide regions of visual space, meaning that independent responses to small parts of the visual field (a classical linear model of V1) would not be able to produce these effects. There is evidence that surround suppression participates in these tasks by either adjusting the representation of the classical receptive field or representing entirely different features that include both the classical receptive field and the surround. Direct comparison between physiology and psychophysical experiments have been done on several perceptual effects. These include: (1) the reduced apparent contrast of a grating texture embedded in a surrounding grating, (2) target identification when flanked by other features, (3) saliency of broken contours surrounded by edge segments of different orientations, and (4) orientation discrimination when surrounded by features of different orientations and spatial frequencies. [20]

Information theoretic advantages

It has recently been shown that stimulation of the surround may support the efficient coding hypothesis proposed by Horace Barlow in 1961. [21] This hypothesis suggests that the goal of the sensory system is to create an efficient representation of the stimulus. Recently, this has intersected with the idea of a 'sparse' code, one that is represented using the fewest units possible. It has been shown that surround suppression increases the efficiency of transmitting visual information, and may form a sparse code. [22] If many cells respond to parts of the same stimulus, for instance, a lot of redundant information is encoded. [23] The cell needs metabolic energy for each action potential it produces. Therefore, surround suppression likely helps to produce a neural code that is more metabolically efficient. There are additional theoretical advantages, including the removal of statistical redundancy inherent in natural scene statistics, as well as decorrelation of neural responses, [8] which means less information to process later in the pathway.

Edge detection based on center (red) and off center (green) receptive fields Red on centre green off centre.png
Edge detection based on center (red) and off center (green) receptive fields

The goal of computer vision is to perform automated tasks similar to those of the human visual system, quickly and accurately interpreting the world and making decisions based on visual information. Because surround suppression seems to play a role in efficient and accurate perception, there have been a few computer vision algorithms inspired by this happening in human vision:

So far, the scientific community has been focused on the response properties of the neurons, but exploration of the relation to inference and learning has begun as well. [26]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Perception</span> Interpretation of sensory information

Perception is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the presented information or environment. All perception involves signals that go through the nervous system, which in turn result from physical or chemical stimulation of the sensory system. Vision involves light striking the retina of the eye; smell is mediated by odor molecules; and hearing involves pressure waves.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Visual cortex</span> Region of the brain that processes visual information

The visual cortex of the brain is the area of the cerebral cortex that processes visual information. It is located in the occipital lobe. Sensory input originating from the eyes travels through the lateral geniculate nucleus in the thalamus and then reaches the visual cortex. The area of the visual cortex that receives the sensory input from the lateral geniculate nucleus is the primary visual cortex, also known as visual area 1 (V1), Brodmann area 17, or the striate cortex. The extrastriate areas consist of visual areas 2, 3, 4, and 5.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sensory nervous system</span> Part of the nervous system responsible for processing sensory information

The sensory nervous system is a part of the nervous system responsible for processing sensory information. A sensory system consists of sensory neurons, neural pathways, and parts of the brain involved in sensory perception. Commonly recognized sensory systems are those for vision, hearing, touch, taste, smell, and balance. Senses are transducers from the physical world to the realm of the mind where people interpret the information, creating their perception of the world around them.

The receptive field, or sensory space, is a delimited medium where some physiological stimuli can evoke a sensory neuronal response in specific organisms.

Multisensory integration, also known as multimodal integration, is the study of how information from the different sensory modalities may be integrated by the nervous system. A coherent representation of objects combining modalities enables animals to have meaningful perceptual experiences. Indeed, multisensory integration is central to adaptive behavior because it allows animals to perceive a world of coherent perceptual entities. Multisensory integration also deals with how different sensory modalities interact with one another and alter each other's processing.

Neural adaptation or sensory adaptation is a gradual decrease over time in the responsiveness of the sensory system to a constant stimulus. It is usually experienced as a change in the stimulus. For example, if a hand is rested on a table, the table's surface is immediately felt against the skin. Subsequently, however, the sensation of the table surface against the skin gradually diminishes until it is virtually unnoticeable. The sensory neurons that initially respond are no longer stimulated to respond; this is an example of neural adaptation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Troxler's fading</span> Optical illusion affecting visual perception

Troxler's fading, also called Troxler fading or the Troxler effect, is an optical illusion affecting visual perception. When one fixates on a particular point for even a short period of time, an unchanging stimulus away from the fixation point will fade away and disappear. Research suggests that at least some portion of the perceptual phenomena associated with Troxler's fading occurs in the brain.

Sensory neuroscience is a subfield of neuroscience which explores the anatomy and physiology of neurons that are part of sensory systems such as vision, hearing, and olfaction. Neurons in sensory regions of the brain respond to stimuli by firing one or more nerve impulses following stimulus presentation. How is information about the outside world encoded by the rate, timing, and pattern of action potentials? This so-called neural code is currently poorly understood and sensory neuroscience plays an important role in the attempt to decipher it. Looking at early sensory processing is advantageous since brain regions that are "higher up" contain neurons which encode more abstract representations. However, the hope is that there are unifying principles which govern how the brain encodes and processes information. Studying sensory systems is an important stepping stone in our understanding of brain function in general.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lateral inhibition</span> Capacity of an excited neuron to reduce activity of its neighbors

In neurobiology, lateral inhibition is the capacity of an excited neuron to reduce the activity of its neighbors. Lateral inhibition disables the spreading of action potentials from excited neurons to neighboring neurons in the lateral direction. This creates a contrast in stimulation that allows increased sensory perception. It is also referred to as lateral antagonism and occurs primarily in visual processes, but also in tactile, auditory, and even olfactory processing. Cells that utilize lateral inhibition appear primarily in the cerebral cortex and thalamus and make up lateral inhibitory networks (LINs). Artificial lateral inhibition has been incorporated into artificial sensory systems, such as vision chips, hearing systems, and optical mice. An often under-appreciated point is that although lateral inhibition is visualised in a spatial sense, it is also thought to exist in what is known as "lateral inhibition across abstract dimensions." This refers to lateral inhibition between neurons that are not adjacent in a spatial sense, but in terms of modality of stimulus. This phenomenon is thought to aid in colour discrimination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Filling-in</span>

In vision, filling-in phenomena are those responsible for the completion of missing information across the physiological blind spot, and across natural and artificial scotomata. There is also evidence for similar mechanisms of completion in normal visual analysis. Classical demonstrations of perceptual filling-in involve filling in at the blind spot in monocular vision, and images stabilized on the retina either by means of special lenses, or under certain conditions of steady fixation. For example, naturally in monocular vision at the physiological blind spot, the percept is not a hole in the visual field, but the content is “filled-in” based on information from the surrounding visual field. When a textured stimulus is presented centered on but extending beyond the region of the blind spot, a continuous texture is perceived. This partially inferred percept is paradoxically considered more reliable than a percept based on external input..

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chubb illusion</span> Optical illusion

The Chubb illusion is an optical illusion or error in visual perception in which the apparent contrast of an object varies substantially to most viewers depending on its relative contrast to the field on which it is displayed. These visual illusions are of particular interest to researchers because they may provide valuable insights in regard to the workings of human visual systems.

Repetition priming refers to improvements in a behavioural response when stimuli are repeatedly presented. The improvements can be measured in terms of accuracy or reaction time, and can occur when the repeated stimuli are either identical or similar to previous stimuli. These improvements have been shown to be cumulative, so as the number of repetitions increases the responses get continually faster up to a maximum of around seven repetitions. These improvements are also found when the repeated items are changed slightly in terms of orientation, size and position. The size of the effect is also modulated by the length of time the item is presented for and the length time between the first and subsequent presentations of the repeated items.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vision in toads</span>

The neural basis of prey detection, recognition, and orientation was studied in depth by Jörg-Peter Ewert in a series of experiments that made the toad visual system a model system in neuroethology. He began by observing the natural prey catching behavior of the common European toad.

Feature detection is a process by which the nervous system sorts or filters complex natural stimuli in order to extract behaviorally relevant cues that have a high probability of being associated with important objects or organisms in their environment, as opposed to irrelevant background or noise.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Visual tilt effects</span>

Due to the effect of a spatial context or temporal context, the perceived orientation of a test line or grating pattern can appear tilted away from its physical orientation. The tilt illusion (TI) is the phenomenon that the perceived orientation of a test line or grating is altered by the presence of surrounding lines or grating with a different orientation. And the tilt aftereffect (TAE) is the phenomenon that the perceived orientation is changed after prolonged inspection of another oriented line or grating.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Visual processing abnormalities in schizophrenia</span>

Visual processing abnormalities in schizophrenia are commonly found, and contribute to poor social function.

Biased competition theory advocates the idea that each object in the visual field competes for cortical representation and cognitive processing. This theory suggests that the process of visual processing can be biased by other mental processes such as bottom-up and top-down systems which prioritize certain features of an object or whole items for attention and further processing. Biased competition theory is, simply stated, the competition of objects for processing. This competition can be biased, often toward the object that is currently attended in the visual field, or alternatively toward the object most relevant to behavior.

Binocular neurons are neurons in the visual system that assist in the creation of stereopsis from binocular disparity. They have been found in the primary visual cortex where the initial stage of binocular convergence begins. Binocular neurons receive inputs from both the right and left eyes and integrate the signals together to create a perception of depth.

Binocular switch suppression (BSS) is a technique to suppress usually salient images from an individual's awareness, a type of experimental manipulation used in visual perception and cognitive neuroscience. In BSS, two images of differing signal strengths are repetitively switched between the left and right eye at a constant rate of 1 Hertz. During this process of switching, the image of lower contrast and signal strength is perceptually suppressed for a period of time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Laura Busse</span> German neuroscientist

Laura Busse is a German neuroscientist and professor of Systemic Neuroscience within the Division of Neurobiology at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. Busse's lab studies context-dependent visual processing in mouse models by performing large scale in vivo electrophysiological recordings in the thalamic and cortical circuits of awake and behaving mice.

References

  1. ↑ The classical receptive field refers to a concept of neural behavior that was understood to be invalid virtually from the start. As Spillman et al (2015), quoting Kuffler (1953), "not only the areas from which responses can actually be set up by retinal illumination may be included in a definition of the receptive field but also all areas which show a functional connection, by an inhibitory or excitatory effect on a ganglion cell."
  2. ↑ Cavanaugh, JR; Bair, W; Movshon, JA (2002a). "Nature and interaction of signals from the receptive field center and surround in macaque V1 neurons" (PDF). J Neurophysiol. 88 (5): 2530–2546. doi:10.1152/jn.00692.2001. PMID   12424292.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Allman, J; Miezin, F; McGuinness, E (1985). "Stimulus specific responses from beyond the classical receptive field : Neurophysiological mechanisms for local-global comparisons in visual neurons". Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 8: 407–30. doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.08.030185.002203. PMID   3885829.
  4. 1 2 3 Jones, H. E.; Grieve, K. L.; Wang, W.; Sillito, A. M. (2001). "Surround Suppression in Primate V1 Surround Suppression in Primate V1". J Neurophysiol. 86 (4): 2011–2028. doi:10.1152/jn.2001.86.4.2011. PMID   11600658.
  5. ↑ Allman, J; Miezin, F; McGuinness, E (1985). "Direction- and velocity-specific responses from beyond the classical receptive field in the middle temporal visual area (MT)". Perception. 14 (2): 105–126. doi:10.1068/p140105. PMID   4069941. S2CID   8810829.
  6. 1 2 Hubel, D. H.; Wiesel, T. N. (1965). "Receptive Fields and Functional Architecture in Two Nonstriate Visual Areas (18 and 19) of the Cat". Journal of Neurophysiology. 28 (2): 229–89. doi:10.1152/jn.1965.28.2.229. PMID   14283058.
  7. ↑ Ozeki, H.; Finn, I. M.; Schaffer, E. S.; Miller, K. D.; Ferster, D. (2009). "Inhibitory stabilization of the cortical network underlies visual surround suppression". Neuron. 62 (4): 578–592. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2009.03.028. PMC   2691725 . PMID   19477158.
  8. 1 2 Haider, B.; Krause, M. R.; Duque, A.; Yu, Y.; Touryan, J.; Mazer; McCormick (2010). "Synaptic and network mechanisms of sparse and reliable visual cortical activity during nonclassical receptive field stimulation". Neuron. 65 (1): 107–21. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2009.12.005. PMC   3110675 . PMID   20152117.
  9. ↑ Sundberg, Mitchell; Reynolds (2009). "Spatial Attention Modulates Center-Surround Interactions in Macaque Visual Area V4". Neuron. 61 (6): 952–963. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2009.02.023. PMC   3117898 . PMID   19324003.
  10. ↑ Hunter, J. N.; Born, R. T. (2011). "Stimulus-dependent modulation of suppressive influences in MT". The Journal of Neuroscience. 31 (2): 678–86. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4560-10.2011. PMC   3292058 . PMID   21228177.
  11. 1 2 Sachdev, R. N. S.; Krause, M. R.; Mazer, J. A. (2012). "Surround suppression and sparse coding in visual and barrel cortices". Frontiers in Neural Circuits. 6: 43. doi: 10.3389/fncir.2012.00043 . PMC   3389675 . PMID   22783169.
  12. ↑ Chacron, M. J.; Doiron, B.; Maler, L.; Longtin, A.; Bastian, J. (2003). "Non-classical receptive field mediates switch in a sensory neuron's frequency tuning". Nature. 423 (6935): 77–81. Bibcode:2003Natur.423...77C. doi:10.1038/nature01590. PMID   12721628. S2CID   4428737.
  13. ↑ Webb, B. S.; Dhruv, N. T.; Solomon, S. G.; Tailby, C.; Lennie, P. (2005). "Early and late mechanisms of surround suppression in striate cortex of macaque". The Journal of Neuroscience. 25 (50): 11666–75. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3414-05.2005 . PMC   6726034 . PMID   16354925.
  14. 1 2 Angelucci, A.; Bullier, J. (2003). "Reaching beyond the classical receptive field of V1 neurons: horizontal or feedback axons?". Journal of Physiology, Paris. 97 (2–3): 141–54. doi:10.1016/j.jphysparis.2003.09.001. PMID   14766139. S2CID   12590563.
  15. ↑ Sullivan, T. J.; de Sa, V. R. (2006). "A model of surround suppression through cortical feedback". Neural Networks. 19 (5): 564–72. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.107.6077 . doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2005.12.003. PMID   16500076.
  16. ↑ Perrone, J. A. (2012). "A neural-based code for computing image velocity from small sets of middle temporal (MT/V5) neuron inputs". Journal of Vision. 12 (8): 8. doi: 10.1167/12.8.1 . PMID   22854102.
  17. ↑ Hess, R.; Field, D. (1999). "Integration of contours: new insights". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 3 (12): 480–486. doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(99)01410-2. PMID   10562727. S2CID   10713134.
  18. ↑ Field, D. J.; Hayes, A.; Hess, R. F. (1993). "Contour integration by the human visual system: evidence for a local "association field". Vision Research. 33 (2): 173–93. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(93)90156-q . PMID   8447091. S2CID   205016575.
  19. ↑ Supèr, H; Romeo, A; Keil, M (2010). "Feed-Forward Segmentation of Figure-Ground and Assignment of Border-Ownership". PLOS ONE. 5 (5): e10705. Bibcode:2010PLoSO...510705S. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010705 . PMC   2873306 . PMID   20502718.
  20. ↑ Seriès, P.; Lorenceau, J.; Frégnac, Y. (2004). "The "silent" surround of V1 receptive fields: theory and experiments" (PDF). Journal of Physiology, Paris. 97 (4–6): 453–74. doi:10.1016/j.jphysparis.2004.01.023. hdl: 20.500.11820/92eaee8b-9d65-490c-af66-b1ad61ef4fad . PMID   15242657. S2CID   9372795.
  21. ↑ Barlow, H. B. (1961). Possible principles underlying the transformation of sensory messages. Sensory communication, 217-234.
  22. ↑ Vinje, W. E.; Gallant, J. L. (2002). "Natural stimulation of the nonclassical receptive field increases information transmission efficiency in V1". The Journal of Neuroscience. 22 (7): 2904–15. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-07-02904.2002 . PMC   6758304 . PMID   11923455.
  23. ↑ Schwartz, O., & Simoncelli, E. (2001). Natural signal statistics and sensory gain control. Nature neuroscience 819–825. Retrieved from http://www.cns.nyu.edu/csh04/Articles/Schwartz-Simoncelli-01.pdf.
  24. ↑ Wei, H.; Wang, Z.; Zuo, Q. (2012). "A Model of Image Representation Based on Non-classical Receptive Fields Neural Mechanism of Non-classical Receptive Field". LNCS. 7368: 297–306.
  25. ↑ Grigorescu, C.; Petkov, N.; Westenberg (2003). "Contour detection based on nonclassical receptive field inhibition". IEEE Transactions on Image Processing. 12 (7): 729–39. Bibcode:2003ITIP...12..729G. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.162.149 . doi:10.1109/TIP.2003.814250. PMID   18237948.
  26. ↑ Hyvärinen, A (2010). "Statistical Models of Natural Images and Cortical Visual Representation". Topics in Cognitive Science. 2 (2): 251–264. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.161.6629 . doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01057.x. PMID   25163788.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.