Cited by 139Visual perception and processing mechanismsFace Recognition and PerceptionNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Intracellular Measurements of Spatial Integration and the MAX Operation in Complex Cells of the Cat Primary Visual Cortex

Lampl, Ilan, Ferster, David, Poggio, Tomaso, Riesenhuber, Maximilian·2004·Journal of Neurophysiology

Abstract

We have examined the spatial integration properties of complex cells to determine whether some of their responses can be described by a maximum operation (MAX)-like computation, as suggested by Riesenhuber and Poggio's model of object recognition. Membrane potential was recorded from anesthetized cats while optimally oriented bars were presented, either alone or in pairs, in different parts of the cells' receptive field. In most cells, the membrane potential response to two bars presented simultaneously could not be predicted by the sum of the responses to individual bars. In many cells, however, the responses closely approximated a MAX-like model. That is, the response of the cell to two bars was similar to the larger of the two individual responses (“soft-MAX”). The degree of nonlinear summation varied from cell to cell and varied within single cells from one stimulus configuration to another but on average fit most closely to the MAX model. The firing response of the cells was also well predicted by the MAX-like model. The MAX-like behavior was independent of the distance between the bars (orthogonal to the preferred orientation), independent of the relative amplitude of the responses, and slightly less pronounced at low levels of contrast. This MAX-like behavior of a subset of complex cells may play an important role in invariant object recognition in clutter.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/jn.00060.2004

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • The model predicts, at the C1 and C2 levels, respectively, the max-like behavior of a subclass of complex cells in V1 and V4.

    “For instance, the model predicts (23), at the C 1 and C 2 levels, respectively, the max-like behavior of a subclass of complex cells in V1 (26) and V4 (27).”

    From A feedforward architecture accounts for rapid categorization (2007) · cites this paper as [26]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lampl, I., Ferster, D., Poggio, T., & Riesenhuber, M.
Affiliations
  • Weizmann Institute of Science (IL)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Georgetown University (US)
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Published
2004-11
Volume
92
Issue
5
Pages
2704-2713
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
OpenAlex
W2161126623
Cited by
139
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 11
FWCI
3.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Eye Institute (R01 EY-04726, R01EY004726)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
complex cells, primary visual cortex, spatial integration, nonlinear summation, membrane potential, receptive fields, object recognition, invariant object recognition, cat visual system
MeSH terms
Animals, Cats, Female, Membrane Potentials, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Space Perception, Visual Cortex

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