Cited by 5Visual perception and processing mechanismsEmbodied and Extended CognitionNeural dynamics and brain function

Learning to segment self-generated from externally caused optic flow through sensorimotor mismatch circuits

Open access
Brucklacher, Matthias, Pezzulo, Giovanni, Mannella, Francesco, Galati, Gaspare, Pennartz, Cyriel M.A.·2025·Neural Networks

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Abstract Efficient sensory detection requires the capacity to ignore task-irrelevant information, for example when optic flow patterns created by egomotion need to be disentangled from object perception. To investigate how this is achieved in the visual system, predictive coding with sensorimotor mismatch detection is an attractive starting point. Indeed, experimental evidence for sensorimotor mismatch signals in early visual areas exists, but it is not understood how they are integrated into cortical networks that perform input segmentation and categorization. Our model advances a biologically plausible solution by extending predictive coding models with the ability to distinguish self-generated from externally caused optic flow. We first show that a simple three neuron circuit produces experience-dependent sensorimotor mismatch responses, in agreement with calcium imaging data from mice. This microcircuit is then integrated into a neural network with two generative streams. The motor-to-visual stream consists of parallel microcircuits between motor and visual areas and learns to spatially predict optic flow resulting from self-motion. The second stream bidirectionally connects a motion-selective higher visual area (mHVA) to V1, assigning a crucial role to the abundant feedback connections: the maintenance of a generative model of externally caused optic flow. In the model, area mHVA learns to segment moving objects from the background, and facilitates object categorization. Based on shared neurocomputational principles across species, the model also maps onto primate vision. Our work extends the Hebbian predictive coding to sensorimotor settings, in which the agent actively moves - and learns to predict the consequences of its own movements. Significance statement This research addresses a fundamental challenge in sensory perception: how the brain distinguishes between self-generated and externally caused visual motion. Using a computational model inspired by predictive coding and sensorimotor mismatch detection, the study proposes a biologically plausible solution. The model incorporates a neural microcircuit that generates sensorimotor mismatch responses, aligning with experimental data from mice. This microcircuit is integrated into a neural network with two streams: one predicting self-motion-induced optic flow and another maintaining a generative model for externally caused optic flow. The research advances our understanding of how the brain segments visual input into object and background, shedding light on the neural mechanisms underlying perception and categorization not only in rodents, but also in primates.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neunet.2024.106716

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • NREP has provided computational network models based on sensory cortical hierarchies, which illustrate several integrative processes operating at the level of specific image representation, view-invariant object representation, figure-ground segmentation during ego- and object-motion, and predictive cross-modal interactions.

    “NREP has provided computational network models based on sensory cortical hierarchies, which illustrate several integrative processes operating at the level of specific image representation, view-invariant object representation, figure-ground segmentation during ego- and object-motion, and predictive cross-modal interactions (Brucklacher et al., 2023; Brucklacher, Pezzulo, et al., 2025; Dora et al.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 104 · Cited by 5

Authors
Brucklacher, M., Pezzulo, G., Mannella, F., Galati, G., & Pennartz, C. M. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • National Research Council (IT)
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
Venue
Neural Networks
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-01
Volume
181
Pages
106716
ISSN
0893-6080 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4402943382
Cited by
5
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1
FWCI
1.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neural Networks (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
  • Federation of European Neuroscience Societies
  • European Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
optical flow, predictive coding, self-motion, object segmentation, object classification, visual cortex, feedback connections, primary visual cortex, generative models, Hebbian learning, biologically inspired models, mouse visual cortex
MeSH terms
Animals, Learning, Models, Neurological, Motion Perception, Neurons, Visual Cortex, Visual Pathways, Visual Perception, Neural Networks, Computer, Mice, Optic Flow

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review