Back

Learning low-dimensional generalizable naturalfeatures from retina using a U-net

Wang, S.; Hoshal, B.; de Laittre, E.; Marre, O.; Berry, M. J.; Palmer, S.

2022-11-03 neuroscience
10.1101/2022.11.02.514893 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Much of sensory neuroscience focuses on presenting stimuli that are chosen by the experimenter because they are parametric and easy to sample and are thought to be behaviorally relevant to the organism. However, it is not generally known what these relevant features are in complex, natural scenes. This work focuses on using the retinal encoding of natural movies to determine the presumably behaviorally-relevant features that the brain represents. It is prohibitive to parameterize a natural movie and its respective retinal encoding fully. We use time within a natural movie as a proxy for the whole suite of features evolving across the scene. We then use a task-agnostic deep architecture, an encoder-decoder, to model the retinal encoding process and characterize its representation of "time in the natural scene" in a compressed latent space. In our end-to-end training, an encoder learns a compressed latent representation from a large population of salamander retinal ganglion cells responding to natural movies, while a decoder samples from this compressed latent space to generate the appropriate future movie frame. By comparing latent representations of retinal activity from three movies, we find that the retina has a generalizable encoding for time in the natural scene: the precise, low-dimensional representation of time learned from one movie can be used to represent time in a different movie, with up to 17 ms resolution. We then show that static textures and velocity features of a natural movie are synergistic. The retina simultaneously encodes both to establishes a generalizable, low-dimensional representation of time in the natural scene.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.