Bernal S D_2010.pdf - University of Plymouth

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Maertens. M., Pollmann. S.. Haiiki;, M.. Mildner, T. & MAQller, H. H. (2008), "Retinolopic activation in response to subjective contours in primary visual cortex'. Frontiers in Human Neumscience 2(2), doi: !0.3389/neuro.09.002.2008. Mamassian, P. & Goulcher, R. (2005), "Temporal dynamics in bistable perception'. Journal of Vi.mw 5(4), 361-375. Marr, D. (1982), Vision, Freeman, San Francisco. Calirornia. Masquelier. T., Serre. T., Thorpe. S. & Poggio. T, (2(H)7). Learning complex cell invariance from natural videos: a plausibility proof, Technical report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Masquelier, T. & Thorpe, S. (2010), Teaming to recognize objects using waves of spikes and spike timing-dependent plasticity, in "IEEE 1.1CNN'. Masquclier, T. Sc Thorpe, S. J. (2007). 'Unsupervi.sed learning of visual features through spike timing dependent plasticity'. PUJS Computalioniil liiotology 3(2). e31. Mathias, F., Niko. W. & Laurenz, W. (2008). Invariant object recognition with slow feature analysis, in 'Proceedings of the 18lh international conference on Artilicial Neural Networks, Part r. Springer-Verlag, Prague. Czech Republic. Montero, V. M. (1991), "A quantitative study of synaptic contacts on inlcmcurons and relay cells of the cat lateral geniculale nucleus', Expcriincniiil Brain Research 86(2), 257-270. Moore, C. & Engel. S. A, (2001). "Neural response to perccpiion of volume in the lateral occip ital complex', Neuron 29(1), 277-286. Mumford, D. (1996), Pattern theory: a unifying perspective, in D. Knill & W. Richards, eds, 'Perception as Bayesian Inference', Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 25-62. Murphy, K. (2001). 'An introduction to graphical models'. Murphy, K, (2002), Dynamic Buyesian networks: representation, inference and learning, Phd thesis, UC Berkeley. Computer Science Division. Murphy, K.. Weiss, Y. & Jordan, M. (1999), Loopy belief propagation for approximate infer ence: An empirical study, in "Proceedings of the 15lh Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-99)'. Morgan Kaufniann, San Francisco, CA, pp. 467-47. Murray, J. & Kreutz-Delgado, K. (2007), 'Visual recognition and inference using dynamic over- complete sparse learning". Neural Computation 19(9), 2301-2352. Murray, M. M- Imber, M. L., Javiit. D. C, & Foxe, J. J- (2006), "Boundary completion is automatic and dissociable from shape discrimination", / Neurosci. 26(46). 12043-12054. 279
Murray, M. M.. Wylie. G, R., Higgins. B. A., Javitt. D. C. Schroedcr. C. E. & Foxe. J. J, (2002). "The spatiotemporal dynamics of illusory contour processing: Combined high-densiiy elec trical mapping, source analysis, and functional magnetic resonance imaging', youma/ o/Neu- ivsdence 22(12), 5055-5073. Murray. S. O.. Schrater. P. & Kersten, D. (2004). "Perceptual grouping and the interactions hclween visual cortical areas'. Neural Networks 17(5-6), 695-705. Nassi, J- J. & Callaway. E. M. (2009), 'Parallel processing strategies of the primate visual system", Nature Reviews Neumscience 10(5), 360-372. Ncftci, E., Chicca, £., Cook, M., Indiveri. G. & Douglas. R, (2010). State-dependent sensory processing in networks of visi spiking neurons, in 'Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), Proceed ings of 2010 IEEE Inlernalional Symposium on'. Nessler, B., Pfeiffer, M. & Maass, W, (2009). 'Stdp enables spiking neurons to detect hidden causes of their inputs'. In Proi: of NIPS 2009: AdvaiHes in Neural Information Processing Systems 22. Neumann, H. & Mingolla, E, (2001), Computational neural models of spatial integration in per ceptual grouping., in T.F.Shipley &. P. Kellman, eds, 'From Fragments to Objects: Grouping and Segmentation in Vision". Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 353-400. Olshausen, B, (2003), Principles of image representation in visual cortex, in J. W. L.M. Chalupa. ed„ "The Visual Neurosciences', MIT Press, pp. 1603-15. Olshausen, B. & Field, D, (2005). 'How close are we to understanding vl?'. Neural Compula tion 17(8), 1665-1699. Onisko, A., Druzdzel, M. J. & Wasyluk. H. (2001). 'Learning bayesian network parametens from small data sets: application of noisy-or gales'. Inlerniitioiiol Journal of Approximate Reasoning mH 165-182. Pasupaihy. A. & Connor, C. (2(X)2). 'Population coding of shape in area v4', Nat Neurosci 5(12), 1332-1338. Pasupathy, A. & Connor, C. E. (2001). 'Shape representation in area v4: Position-specific tuning for boundary conformation', J Neuwphysiol 86(5), 2505-2519. Pearl, J. (1988), Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference, Morgan. Peters. A., Payne, B. R. & Budd. J. (1994). 'A numerical analysis of the geniculoconical input to striate cortex in the monkey'. Cerebral Cortex 4(3). 215-229. 280
Page 1 and 2:
A cortical model of object percepti
Page 3 and 4:
A cortical model of object percepti
Page 6 and 7:
Contents Ab.stract V AcknowlcdRcnie
Page 8:
4.7 Original contrihutions in this
Page 11 and 12:
3.9 Example of belief propagation i
Page 13 and 14:
5.19 SI and CI model responses to a
Page 15 and 16:
XVI
Page 17 and 18:
2009 Durabernal S. Wennekers T, Den
Page 19 and 20:
J.I. OVERVIEW retinal stimulation (
Page 21 and 22:
J.2. MAIN CONTRfBUTlONS • A revie
Page 23 and 24:
2,1. OBJECT RECOGNITION ihe princip
Page 25 and 26:
2.1. OBJECT REC(JGNmON The dorsal s
Page 27 and 28:
2.1. OBJECT RECOGNJTION properties
Page 29 and 30:
2.1. OBJECT RECOGNITION of input em
Page 31 and 32:
2.1. OBJEOTRBCXiGNrnON ta) u I/I ^.
Page 33 and 34:
2.1. OBJECT RECOGNITION 2.1.2.1 HMA
Page 35 and 36:
2.1. OBJECT RECnCNmON unit will be
Page 37 and 38:
2.1. OBJECT REC(X}NIT!ON tivity, st
Page 39 and 40:
2.1. OBJECT RECOGNITION response fr
Page 41 and 42:
2.2. HSGH-LEVEL FEEDBACK feature an
Page 43 and 44:
2.2. HIGH-LEVEL FEEDBACK Thirdly, p
Page 45 and 46:
2.2. mCH-LBVEL FEEDBACK Kandom 2 LO
Page 47 and 48:
1.2. HIGH-LEVEL FEEDBACK « 70 U M
Page 49 and 50:
2.2. HIGH-LEVEL FEEDBACK D Receptiv
Page 51 and 52:
1.1. HIGH-LEVEL FEEDBACK context of
Page 53 and 54:
2.2. HIGH-LEVEL FEEDBACK detailed i
Page 55 and 56:
2.2. HIGH-LEVEL FEEDBACK activity g
Page 57 and 58:
2.2. HIGH-LEVEL FEEDBACK task, such
Page 59 and 60:
2.2. HIGH'lM^im,_WEDBACK 2004), and
Page 61 and 62:
2.2. HIGH-LEVEL FEEDBACK However, t
Page 63 and 64:
2.2. HIGH-LEVEL FEEDBACK sizes that
Page 65 and 66:
2.3. ILLUSORY AND OCCLUDED CONTOURS
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
2.3. a.LVSORY AND OCCLUDED CONTnURS
Page 81 and 82:
2.4. ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS IN THIS
Page 83 and 84:
3.1. THE BAYBSIAN BRAIN HYPOTHESIS
Page 85 and 86:
XI. THEBAYESIANBRAINHYPfmBSIS poste
Page 87 and 88:
3.1. THE BAYESJAN BRAIN HYPOmESIS T
Page 89 and 90:
3.2. EVIDENCE FROM THE BRAIN ity in
Page 91 and 92:
3.3. DEFINITION AND MATHEMATlCACPOR
Page 93 and 94:
3.3. DEFINITION AND MATHEMATICAL FO
Page 95 and 96:
XX DEFINITION AND MATHEMATICAL FORM
Page 97 and 98:
.1,3. DEHNITION AND MATHEMATICAL FO
Page 99 and 100:
3 J. DEFINITION AND MATHEMATICAL FO
Page 101 and 102:
3.3. DEFINITION AND MATHFMAnCAL FOR
Page 103 and 104:
.1.3. DERNrnON AmMAnWMATtCAL FORMUL
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
3.3. DEFINITION Am MATHEMATICAL FOR
Page 113 and 114:
33. DEFINITION AND MATHEMATICAL FOR
Page 115 and 116:
3.3. OmNmON AND MATHEMATSOALFORMVLA
Page 117 and 118:
3.3. DEFlNmON AND MATHEMATICAL FORM
Page 119 and 120:
3 J. DEFINITION AND MATHEMATICAL f-
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
3.3. D^JmnON AND MATHEMATICAL F0RMU
Page 125 and 126:
.1.3. DEFI^anON AND MATHFMATICAL FO
Page 127 and 128:
3.3. DEFINITION AND MATHEMATICAl. F
Page 129 and 130:
3J. DEFINITION AND MATHEMATICAL FOR
Page 131 and 132:
3.4. EXISTING MODELS is on models t
Page 133 and 134:
.1.4. EXISTING MODELS Figure J. 10:
Page 135 and 136:
3.4. EXISTING MODELS the node encod
Page 137 and 138:
3.4. EXISTING MOOm^ Type of f>raph
Page 139 and 140:
3.4. EXISTING MODELS The model comp
Page 141 and 142:
X4. EXISTING MODELS ;v 1,1 gi (8>^8
Page 143 and 144:
3A. EXISTING MODELS proposes a triv
Page 145 and 146:
3.4. EXISTING MODELS by the higher
Page 147 and 148:
3.4. EXISTING MODELS aleni lo findi
Page 149 and 150:
3.4. EXISTING MODELS Model Epshtein
Page 151 and 152:
3.4. EXISTING MODELS Fristonelal. 2
Page 153 and 154:
3.4. EXISTING MODELS Oulgoing teedl
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
4.1 HMAX AS A BAYESIAN NETWORK 4.1
Page 159 and 160:
4.1. HMAX AS A BAYBSIAN NETWORK ini
Page 161 and 162:
4.1. HMAX AS A BAYESIAN NETWORK fea
Page 163 and 164:
4.1. HMAX AS A BAYESIAN NETWORK S3
Page 165 and 166:
4.1. HMAX AS A BAYESIAN NETWORK Nod
Page 167 and 168:
4.2. ARCHITECTURES 4.2 Architecture
Page 169 and 170:
4,2. ARCHITECTURES S3 C2 1 node Kj,
Page 171 and 172:
4.2. ARCmm^TVRES S3 I C2 s f S2 o o
Page 173 and 174:
4.2. ARCHITECTURES S4 f C3 S3 I C2
Page 175 and 176:
4.3. LEARNING 4.3.2 S1-C1 CRTs The
Page 177 and 178:
4.3. LEARNING Weight matrix applied
Page 179 and 180:
4.3. LEARNING CI group -1 •B •
Page 181 and 182:
4.3. LEARNING 2. The list of select
Page 183 and 184:
4.3. LEARNING node=«. Therefore, t
Page 185 and 186:
4.3. LEARNING 4.3.4 S2-C2CPTS The w
Page 187 and 188:
4.3. WARNING 60 S3 tealures (object
Page 189 and 190:
4.4. FEEDFORWARD PROCESSING (he sim
Page 191 and 192:
4.4. FEEDFORWARD PROCFSSING Figure
Page 193 and 194:
4.5. FEEDBACK PROCESSING is proport
Page 195 and 196:
4.5. F^mSACK PRCKESSING n^ (U,) i^(
Page 197 and 198:
4.5. FEEDBACK PfiOCESSWG t.(VJ,) ji
Page 199 and 200:
4.5. {REDBACK PROCESSING true vs. r
Page 201 and 202:
4.5. FEEDBACK PROCES.SING 4.5.3.2 D
Page 203 and 204:
4.5. FEEDBACK PROCESSING evidence i
Page 205 and 206:
4.6. SUMMARY OF MODEL APPROXIMATION
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
5,1. FEEDFORWARD PROCESSING using t
Page 211 and 212:
5.L FEEDFORWARD PROCESSING Slate =
Page 213 and 214:
5.1. FEEDFORWARD PROCESSING 1^ Onem
Page 215 and 216:
5.1. FEEDFORWARD PROCESSING j • H
Page 217 and 218:
5.1. FEEDFORWARD PROCESSING 5.1.2 O
Page 219 and 220:
5.1. FEEDFORWARD PROCESSING Normal
Page 221 and 222:
5.1. FEEDFORWARD PROCESSING c g ra
Page 223 and 224:
5-1. FEEDFORWARD PROCESSING 4 5 Non
Page 225 and 226:
5.1. FEEDFORWARD PROCESSING 100 8 9
Page 227 and 228:
S.i. FEEDFORWARD PnOCESSING 5.1.2.4
Page 229 and 230:
5.2. FEEDBACK-MEDIATED ILLUSORY CON
Page 231 and 232:
5.2. FEEDBACK MEDIATED ILLUSORY CON
Page 233 and 234:
5.2. FEiiDBACK-MEDWTHD ILLUSORY CON
Page 235 and 236:
5.2. FEEDBACK MEDIATED ILLUSORY CON
Page 237 and 238:
5.2. FEEDBACK-MHDIATED ILLUSORY CON
Page 239 and 240:
5.2. FEEDBACK'MEDIATED ILLUSORY CON
Page 241 and 242:
5.2. FEEDBACK-MEDIATED ILLVSORY CON
Page 243 and 244:
.5.2. FEEDBACK-MEDIATED ELUSORY CON
Page 245 and 246: 5.2. FEEDBACK-MEDIATED SILUSORY CON
Page 247 and 248: 5.2. FEEDBACK-MEDIATED ILLUSORY CON
Page 249 and 250: 5.4. ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS IN THIS
Page 251 and 252: 6.1. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS dence and
Page 253 and 254: 6.1. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS The graph
Page 255 and 256: 6.t. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS used 10 co
Page 257 and 258: 6.1. ANALYSIS OF RF.SULTS the image
Page 259 and 260: 6.1. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS feedback w
Page 261 and 262: 6.1. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS over lime.
Page 263 and 264: 6.1. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 6.1.2.5 Fe
Page 265 and 266: 6.1. ANALYSIS Ot RESULTS step. Alth
Page 267 and 268: 6.1. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS operations
Page 269 and 270: 6.J. ANALYSIS OFRBSULTS model could
Page 271 and 272: 6.1. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Alternativ
Page 273 and 274: 6.2. COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTAL B
Page 275 and 276: 6.3. COMPARISON WITH PRKVIOUS MODBL
Page 277 and 278: 6.4. FUTURE WORK to temporal contex
Page 279 and 280: 6.5. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY OF CON
Page 281 and 282: 6.5. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY OF CON
Page 283 and 284: • The HTM paliems correspond lo t
Page 285 and 286: 268
Page 287 and 288: 270
Page 289 and 290: Bolz, J.& Gilbert, CD. (1986), CJcn
Page 291 and 292: Friston, K. & Kiebel, S. (2009). 'C
Page 293 and 294: Hoffman. K. L. & Lngothetis, N K. (
Page 295: Lanyon. L. & Denham. S. (2(X)9), 'M
Page 299 and 300: Reynolds, J. H. &, Chelazzi, L. (20
Page 301 and 302: Stanley. D. A. & Rubin, N. (2003),
show all

Bernal S D_2010.pdf - University of Plymouth

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?