Learning to segment self-generated from externally caused optic flow through sensorimotor mismatch circuits
Open accessPublished 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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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.”
From Integrated information and predictive processing theories of consciousness: An adversarial collaborative review (2026) · cites this paper as Brucklacher, Pezzulo, et al., 2025
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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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