Cargando…
Excitatory versus inhibitory feedback in Bayesian formulations of scene construction
The selective attention for identification model (SAIM) is an established model of selective visual attention. SAIM implements translation-invariant object recognition, in scenes with multiple objects, using the parallel distributed processing (PDP) paradigm. Here, we show that SAIM can be formulate...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Royal Society
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6544897/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31039693 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2018.0344 |
_version_ | 1783423308481429504 |
---|---|
author | Abadi, Alireza Khatoon Yahya, Keyvan Amini, Massoud Friston, Karl Heinke, Dietmar |
author_facet | Abadi, Alireza Khatoon Yahya, Keyvan Amini, Massoud Friston, Karl Heinke, Dietmar |
author_sort | Abadi, Alireza Khatoon |
collection | PubMed |
description | The selective attention for identification model (SAIM) is an established model of selective visual attention. SAIM implements translation-invariant object recognition, in scenes with multiple objects, using the parallel distributed processing (PDP) paradigm. Here, we show that SAIM can be formulated as Bayesian inference. Crucially, SAIM uses excitatory feedback to combine top-down information (i.e. object knowledge) with bottom-up sensory information. By contrast, predictive coding implementations of Bayesian inference use inhibitory feedback. By formulating SAIM as a predictive coding scheme, we created a new version of SAIM that uses inhibitory feedback. Simulation studies showed that both types of architectures can reproduce the response time costs induced by multiple objects—as found in visual search experiments. However, due to the different nature of the feedback, the two SAIM schemes make distinct predictions about the motifs of microcircuits mediating the effects of top-down afferents. We discuss empirical (neuroimaging) methods to test the predictions of the two inference architectures. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6544897 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | The Royal Society |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65448972019-06-12 Excitatory versus inhibitory feedback in Bayesian formulations of scene construction Abadi, Alireza Khatoon Yahya, Keyvan Amini, Massoud Friston, Karl Heinke, Dietmar J R Soc Interface Life Sciences–Mathematics interface The selective attention for identification model (SAIM) is an established model of selective visual attention. SAIM implements translation-invariant object recognition, in scenes with multiple objects, using the parallel distributed processing (PDP) paradigm. Here, we show that SAIM can be formulated as Bayesian inference. Crucially, SAIM uses excitatory feedback to combine top-down information (i.e. object knowledge) with bottom-up sensory information. By contrast, predictive coding implementations of Bayesian inference use inhibitory feedback. By formulating SAIM as a predictive coding scheme, we created a new version of SAIM that uses inhibitory feedback. Simulation studies showed that both types of architectures can reproduce the response time costs induced by multiple objects—as found in visual search experiments. However, due to the different nature of the feedback, the two SAIM schemes make distinct predictions about the motifs of microcircuits mediating the effects of top-down afferents. We discuss empirical (neuroimaging) methods to test the predictions of the two inference architectures. The Royal Society 2019-05 2019-05-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6544897/ /pubmed/31039693 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2018.0344 Text en © 2019 The Authors. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Life Sciences–Mathematics interface Abadi, Alireza Khatoon Yahya, Keyvan Amini, Massoud Friston, Karl Heinke, Dietmar Excitatory versus inhibitory feedback in Bayesian formulations of scene construction |
title | Excitatory versus inhibitory feedback in Bayesian formulations of scene construction |
title_full | Excitatory versus inhibitory feedback in Bayesian formulations of scene construction |
title_fullStr | Excitatory versus inhibitory feedback in Bayesian formulations of scene construction |
title_full_unstemmed | Excitatory versus inhibitory feedback in Bayesian formulations of scene construction |
title_short | Excitatory versus inhibitory feedback in Bayesian formulations of scene construction |
title_sort | excitatory versus inhibitory feedback in bayesian formulations of scene construction |
topic | Life Sciences–Mathematics interface |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6544897/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31039693 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2018.0344 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT abadialirezakhatoon excitatoryversusinhibitoryfeedbackinbayesianformulationsofsceneconstruction AT yahyakeyvan excitatoryversusinhibitoryfeedbackinbayesianformulationsofsceneconstruction AT aminimassoud excitatoryversusinhibitoryfeedbackinbayesianformulationsofsceneconstruction AT fristonkarl excitatoryversusinhibitoryfeedbackinbayesianformulationsofsceneconstruction AT heinkedietmar excitatoryversusinhibitoryfeedbackinbayesianformulationsofsceneconstruction |