Representation of Concurrent Stimuli by Population Activity in Visual Cortex
Open accessAbstract
How do neuronal populations represent concurrent stimuli? We measured population responses in cat primary visual cortex (V1) using electrode arrays. Population responses to two superimposed gratings were weighted sums of the individual grating responses. The weights depended strongly on the relative contrasts of the gratings. When the contrasts were similar, the population performed an approximately equal summation. When the contrasts differed markedly, however, the population performed approximately a winner-take-all competition. Stimuli that were intermediate to these extremes elicited intermediate responses. This entire range of behaviors was explained by a single model of contrast normalization. Normalization captured both the spike responses and the local field potential responses; it even predicted visually evoked currents source-localized to V1 in human subjects. Normalization has profound effects on V1 population responses and is likely to shape the interpretation of these responses by higher cortical areas.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Gain increases may optimize signal discrimination in presence of external noise by facilitating attractor dynamics and promoting a winner-take-all mechanism.
“Gain increases may optimize signal discrimination in the presence of external noise by facilitating attractor dynamics218 and promoting a winner-take-all mechanism219,220.”
From Mechanisms underlying gain modulation in the cortex (2020) · cites this paper as [219]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 57 · Cited by 247
- Authors
- Busse, L., Wade, A. R., & Carandini, M.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Corresponding author
- Busse, Laura
- Venue
- Neuron
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-12
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 931-942
- ISSN
- 0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2807406
- OpenAlex
- W2046340161
- Cited by
- 247
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 6.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- erratum (2014-07-02)
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Neuron (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Eye Institute (EY-18157, EY17396, R01EY018157, R01EY017396)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
- Keywords
- population activity, primary visual cortex, contrast normalization, winner-take-all competition, superimposed gratings, local field potentials, spike responses, stimulus representation, cat visual cortex
- MeSH terms
- Action Potentials, Animals, Cats, Computer Simulation, Electroencephalography, Electrophysiology, Evoked Potentials, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Neurons, Neuropsychological Tests, Photic Stimulation, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Visual Cortex, Visual Pathways, Visual Perception, Contrast Sensitivity
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