Towards biologically plausible regularization mechanisms T. Vi´ eville et cie November 25, 2003
Contents • Which part of the brain do we study ? • Forward / backward connections in the cortex • The role of feedbacks: a few assumptions • Feedbacks: a view of the Friston framework • A variational view of a cortical map computation • Implementing feedbacks between cortical maps 1
Which part of the brain do we study ? What and where visual streams: from [2] 2
E.g. motion processing: from [7] from [4] 3
Fast brain: how fast ? backward connection may be faster than forward from [2] 4
Forward / backward connections in the cortex Following [6], let us review that the visual cortices can be considered as a hierarchy of cortical levels with reciprocal extrinsic cortico- cortical connections among the constituent cortical areas [5]. The notion of a hierarchy depends upon a distinction between forward and backward extrinsic connections. This distinction rests upown different laminar specificity [9, 10] Forwards connections Backwards connections Sparse axonal bifurcations Abundant axonal bifurcation Topographically organized Diffuse topography Originate in supragranular layers 2/3 Originate in bilaminar/infragranular layers 5/6 Terminate largely in layer 4 Terminate predominantly in layer 1, but all layers except 4 Postsynaptic effects through fast Modulatory afferents activate slow AMPA (1.3-2.4 ms decay) and GABAA (6 ms decay) receptors (50 ms decay) voltage-sensitive NMDA receptors Comment: postsynaptic/modulatory effect is a conjecture, so is assumptions on synapses mechanisms 5
Backward connections are considered to have a role in Forward connections are concerned with the promulgation mediating contextual effects and in the co-ordination of and segregation of sensory information , consistent with: processing channels , consistent with: (i) their sparse axonal bifurcation; (i) their frequent bifurcation; (ii) patchy axonal terminations; and (ii) diffuse axonal terminations; and (iii) topographic projections. (iii) non-topographic projections [10] (iv) slow time-constants. - forward connections are driving and backward connections are modulatory, as suggested by reversible inactivation [11, 8] and functional neuroimaging [1] - backward connections are more numerous and transcend more levels, e.g. the ratio of forward efferent connections to backward afferents in the lateral geniculate is about 1:10/20; there are backward connections from TE and TEO to V1 but no monosynaptic connections from V1 to TE or TEO [10]. - backward connections are more divergent than forward connections [14], one point in a given cortical area will connect to a region 5-8mm in diameter in another; the divergence region of a point in V5 (i.e. the region receiving backward afferents from V5) may include thick and inter-stripes in V2, whereas its convergence region (i.e. the region providing forward afferents to V5) is limited to the thick stripes [14]. They are faster than direct lateral connections [ ? ] 6
The role of feedbacks: a few assumptions • where to process simple cues allow to decide in which part of the retinal map visual processing have to occur: - a rough but fast edge detector may be used to determine which contrasted areas have to analyzed - large scale (smoothed, eliminating noise) orientation detector may help to tune further process of visual cues (e.g. figure/background segmentation), - low-level but efficient focus of attention towards close , mobile or textured objects is derived from fast rotationally stabilized motion perception; • what to process very fast object recognition, as experimented and modelized by, e.g. [12, 13], allows a “model-based” processing of the visual information with the possibility to choose among memorized previous processing modes, configurations of parameters tuned with respect to this first recognition. 7
• Holistic perception : naive introspection shows that we are able to almost instantaneously perform the grouping of local and even random tokens or attributes (e.g. the dalmatian picture), yielding a global object perception. This includes “hallucinations” Holistic perception may be related to of 2D or 3D shapes from partial information (e.g. the Kanizsa triangle). fast-brain object labelization: feedbacks from what has been detected by this “1st stage” may be the key feature of holistic perception. • Opportunism : One principle which seems to control all visual perception is that “the end justifies the means”. This means that in order to elaborate our percepts, our brain has an extraordinary capacity to combine several attributes (color, texture, motion, stereo, etc..), but always choosing those well adapted to a given context or to a given task. This occurs dynamically and without any conscious effort. Feedbacks in the visual cortex seems to be used to select the relevant attributes, given a task or context, as soon as this state has been either detected or input to the system by higher “layers” of the cortex or obtained from a-priori information. 8
Feedbacks: a view of the Friston framework • The brain is a .. machine to find “causes” ν from inputs u • The world is a deterministic dynamical system : ˙ = f ( x, ν ) x ( −∞ ) = 0 x (1) = g ( x ) u The variable x is the “hidden” deterministic system state (“universal” but trivial (!) representation) 9
In (1), we can eliminate (in fact “integrate”) the influence of x : we directly relate the input u = P ( ν, β ) to the recent history of the causes ν : � � � t t t κ 2 ( τ, τ ′ ) ν ( t − τ ) ν ( t − τ ′ ) dτdτ ′ u ( t ) = κ 1 ( τ ) ν ( t − τ ) dτ + + .. 0 0 0 � �� � � �� � influence from previous causes modulatory influence between causes (2) i.e. we parameterize this causal relationship with parameter: � � ∂u ( t ) ∂u ( t ) � t =0 , .., κ 2 ( τ, τ ′ ) = � β = [ κ 1 ( τ ) = t =0 , .. ] � ∂ν ( t − τ ) ∂ν ( t − τ ′ ) � ∂ν ( t − τ ) Fliess fundamental formula and Volterra kernels 10
v = R(u , ) forward connection causes representation v u Infered ‘‘causes’’ Inputs input prediction backward connection u= P( , ) v adapted from [6] The inference is coherent iff : u = P ( R ( u, Φ) , β ) • E xpectation: is parameterized by forward connections Φ expectation “infers” the causes from the given inputs • esti M ation: is parameterized by backward connections β estimation “predicts” the input from “a-priori” causes 11
Let us find the “maximally probable” estimation of the causes ν , knowing u : max ν log ( p ( ν | u )) = max ν log ( p ( u | ν )) + log ( p ( ν )) − log ( p ( u )) � �� � don’t care maximal likehood max ν log ( p ( u | ν )) + log ( p ( ν )) Conditional information A priori information β tuning : u = P ( ν, β ) Φ tuning : ν = R ( u, Φ) max ν log ( p ( P ( ν, β ) | ν )) + log ( p ( R ( u, Φ)) Estimation Expectation 12
from [6] 13
Which probability ? p − V p = e additive error u = P ( ν, β ) + ǫ V p ( ǫ ) = e − V ( ǫ,θ ) Gibb’s potential e.g. exponential : V ( ǫ, θ ) = log ( c ( θ ) + b ( θ ) T a ( ǫ )) . . Gaussian, Poisson, binomial, uniform, .. min β V ( u − P ( ν, β ) , θ ) min Φ θ V ( u − P ( R ( u, Φ) , β ) , θ ) - in the formalism θ is “expectated” with Φ - the probability distribution must be “chosen” - convergence is “guaranteed” .. towards a sub-optimal (local minimum) solution - the minimization process corresponds to our “pde” approach 14
A variational view of a cortical map computation optional input transformation h(m) h map � || h − ¯ m min L , L = 1 h || 2 Λ + ||∇ h || 2 computation map output 2 L map input , L map parameters - Λ : measurement information metric : precision of the input function, partial observations, missing data → linear relations between some measures - L : diffusion tensor : (a) When the problem is ill-posed, we choose the solution which variations are minimized. (b) When partially or approximately defined, the value is defined using information “around’. 15
Implementation using an integral approximation of the differential operator: ∂ h k � � � � ∂t ( p u ) = −∇L t ( p u ) = � ( p u ) − � t − ¯ Λ k h l h l v L uv kl h l t ( p v ) t l t l (1st order scheme) computes a weighted mean value around x minus the balanced value at x . - extra cortical input or intra-cortical input from previous layers (layers IV of the cortex) correspond to the input variable ¯ h , - extra cortical or backward intra-cortical output (layers V of the cortex) correspond to the output the computed variable h , - local intra cortical connections (layers II/III of the cortex) correspond to inter-parameters interaction, i.e. forward inputs to define Λ and L , thus σ , - backward intra cortical connections (layers I of the cortex) correspond to inter-parameter interactions, i.e. backward inputs to define Λ and L , thus σ , from [3] - internal connections correspond to the local diffusion mechanism, i.e. correspond to the integration over the operator variable. 16
Recommend
More recommend
