Cited by 1,658Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural dynamics and brain functionNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

An evaluation of the two-dimensional Gabor filter model of simple receptive fields in cat striate cortex

Jones, J. P., Palmer, L. A.·1987·Journal of Neurophysiology

Abstract

1. Using the two-dimensional (2D) spatial and spectral response profiles described in the previous two reports, we test Daugman's generalization of Marcelja's hypothesis that simple receptive fields belong to a class of linear spatial filters analogous to those described by Gabor and referred to here as 2D Gabor filters. 2. In the space domain, we found 2D Gabor filters that fit the 2D spatial response profile of each simple cell in the least-squared error sense (with a simplex algorithm), and we show that the residual error is devoid of spatial structure and statistically indistinguishable from random error. 3. Although a rigorous statistical approach was not possible with our spectral data, we also found a Gabor function that fit the 2D spectral response profile of each simple cell and observed that the residual errors are everywhere small and unstructured. 4. As an assay of spatial linearity in two dimensions, on which the applicability of Gabor theory is dependent, we compare the filter parameters estimated from the independent 2D spatial and spectral measurements described above. Estimates of most parameters from the two domains are highly correlated, indicating that assumptions about spatial linearity are valid. 5. Finally, we show that the functional form of the 2D Gabor filter provides a concise mathematical expression, which incorporates the important spatial characteristics of simple receptive fields demonstrated in the previous two reports. Prominent here are 1) Ca…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/jn.1987.58.6.1233

Cites

22 of 22 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jones, J. P., & Palmer, L. A.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Published
1987-12-01
Volume
58
Issue
6
Pages
1233-1258
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
OpenAlex
W1914401667
Cited by
1,658
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 75 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 64 · 2016: 61 · 2015: 64 · 2014: 81 · 2013: 63 · 2012: 63
FWCI
6.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Eye Institute (R01-EY-04638)
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
simple cells, spatial linearity
MeSH terms
Animals, Cats, Mathematics, Models, Neurological, Visual Cortex, Visual Fields, 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