Predicting Functional Properties of Visual Cortex from an Evolutionary Scaling Law
Open accessAbstract
The number of neurons in the primary visual cortex (V1) is, across primate species, related to the number of neurons in the visual thalamus (the lateral geniculate nucleus [LGN]) by a power law with an exponent of 3/2. This evolutionary scaling law is explained by a simple relation according to which the fineness of resolution in cortex is related to the number of neurons in the area of cortex used to process the information from a single point of light (the point-spread area). The same theory provides a link between two functional properties of the visual cortex, the areal cortical magnification factor (ACMF) and the receptive field (RF) area.
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?
Receptive field sizes are thought to be inversely related to cortical magnification.
“given that receptive field sizes are thought to be inversely related to cortical magnification (millimeters of cortex per degree of visual angle)81,82”
From A virtual patient simulation modeling the neural and perceptual effects of human visual cortical stimulation, from pulse trains to percepts (2024) · cites this paper as [82]
Cortical magnification varies logarithmically.
“Because receptive fields vary linearly with eccentricity67 while cortical magnification varies logarithmically64,82, the optimal configuration packs electrodes less tightly in regions of the cortex representing the fovea than regions representing the periphery (see “STAR methods”).”
From A virtual patient simulation modeling the neural and perceptual effects of human visual cortical stimulation, from pulse trains to percepts (2024) · cites this paper as [82]
Across much of cortex, receptive field areas approximate the areal cortical magnification to the −2/3 power.
“Across much of cortex receptive field areas approximate the areal cortical magnification to the − 2/3 power82; explaining the previous observation of Bosking et al.24 that the size of the phosphenes drawn by their patients could be predicted by cortical magnification.”
From A virtual patient simulation modeling the neural and perceptual effects of human visual cortical stimulation, from pulse trains to percepts (2024) · cites this paper as [82]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 14 · Cited by 21
- Authors
- Stevens, C. F.
- Affiliations
- Salk Institute for Biological Studies (US)
- Corresponding author
- Stevens, Charles F.
- ORCID
- Stevens, Charles F.
- Venue
- Neuron
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2002-09
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 139-142
- ISSN
- 0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2018069189
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Neuron (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
- Keywords
- primary visual cortex, lateral geniculate nucleus, power law, cortical magnification factor, primate visual system, neuron number
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Brain Mapping, Callithrix, Cebus, Biological Evolution, Galago, Geniculate Bodies, Neurons, Predictive Value of Tests, Primates, Visual Cortex, Visual Fields, Visual Pathways, Visual Perception
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
