IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1008775.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reconstructing feedback representations in the ventral visual pathway with a generative adversarial autoencoder

Author

Listed:
  • Haider Al-Tahan
  • Yalda Mohsenzadeh

Abstract

While vision evokes a dense network of feedforward and feedback neural processes in the brain, visual processes are primarily modeled with feedforward hierarchical neural networks, leaving the computational role of feedback processes poorly understood. Here, we developed a generative autoencoder neural network model and adversarially trained it on a categorically diverse data set of images. We hypothesized that the feedback processes in the ventral visual pathway can be represented by reconstruction of the visual information performed by the generative model. We compared representational similarity of the activity patterns in the proposed model with temporal (magnetoencephalography) and spatial (functional magnetic resonance imaging) visual brain responses. The proposed generative model identified two segregated neural dynamics in the visual brain. A temporal hierarchy of processes transforming low level visual information into high level semantics in the feedforward sweep, and a temporally later dynamics of inverse processes reconstructing low level visual information from a high level latent representation in the feedback sweep. Our results append to previous studies on neural feedback processes by presenting a new insight into the algorithmic function and the information carried by the feedback processes in the ventral visual pathway.Author summary: It has been shown that the ventral visual cortex consists of a dense network of regions with feedforward and feedback connections. The feedforward path processes visual inputs along a hierarchy of cortical areas that starts in early visual cortex (an area tuned to low level features e.g. edges/corners) and ends in inferior temporal cortex (an area that responds to higher level categorical contents e.g. faces/objects). Alternatively, the feedback connections modulate neuronal responses in this hierarchy by broadcasting information from higher to lower areas. In recent years, deep neural network models which are trained on object recognition tasks achieved human-level performance and showed similar activation patterns to the visual brain. In this work, we developed a generative neural network model that consists of encoding and decoding sub-networks. By comparing this computational model with the human brain temporal (magnetoencephalography) and spatial (functional magnetic resonance imaging) response patterns, we found that the encoder processes resemble the brain feedforward processing dynamics and the decoder shares similarity with the brain feedback processing dynamics. These results provide an algorithmic insight into the spatiotemporal dynamics of feedforward and feedback processes in biological vision.

Suggested Citation

  • Haider Al-Tahan & Yalda Mohsenzadeh, 2021. "Reconstructing feedback representations in the ventral visual pathway with a generative adversarial autoencoder," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-19, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1008775
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008775
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008775
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008775&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008775?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katharina Dobs & Leyla Isik & Dimitrios Pantazis & Nancy Kanwisher, 2019. "How face perception unfolds over time," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Hamed Nili & Cai Wingfield & Alexander Walther & Li Su & William Marslen-Wilson & Nikolaus Kriegeskorte, 2014. "A Toolbox for Representational Similarity Analysis," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-11, April.
    3. Russell Epstein & Nancy Kanwisher, 1998. "A cortical representation of the local visual environment," Nature, Nature, vol. 392(6676), pages 598-601, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael F Bonner & Russell A Epstein, 2018. "Computational mechanisms underlying cortical responses to the affordance properties of visual scenes," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-31, April.
    2. Valentina Krenz & Arjen Alink & Tobias Sommer & Benno Roozendaal & Lars Schwabe, 2023. "Time-dependent memory transformation in hippocampus and neocortex is semantic in nature," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Marisa Nordt & Jesse Gomez & Vaidehi S. Natu & Alex A. Rezai & Dawn Finzi & Holly Kular & Kalanit Grill-Spector, 2023. "Longitudinal development of category representations in ventral temporal cortex predicts word and face recognition," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, December.
    4. Ying Wang & Xue Zhang & Chunhui Wang & Weifen Huang & Qian Xu & Dong Liu & Wen Zhou & Shanguang Chen & Yi Jiang, 2022. "Modulation of biological motion perception in humans by gravity," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Joel Z Leibo & Qianli Liao & Fabio Anselmi & Tomaso Poggio, 2015. "The Invariance Hypothesis Implies Domain-Specific Regions in Visual Cortex," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-29, October.
    6. Isabella C. Wagner & Luise P. Graichen & Boryana Todorova & Andre Lüttig & David B. Omer & Matthias Stangl & Claus Lamm, 2023. "Entorhinal grid-like codes and time-locked network dynamics track others navigating through space," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-18, December.
    7. Julia Berezutskaya & Zachary V Freudenburg & Umut Güçlü & Marcel A J van Gerven & Nick F Ramsey, 2020. "Brain-optimized extraction of complex sound features that drive continuous auditory perception," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-34, July.
    8. Manoj Kumar & Cameron T Ellis & Qihong Lu & Hejia Zhang & Mihai Capotă & Theodore L Willke & Peter J Ramadge & Nicholas B Turk-Browne & Kenneth A Norman, 2020. "BrainIAK tutorials: User-friendly learning materials for advanced fMRI analysis," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-12, January.
    9. Hamed Nili & Alexander Walther & Arjen Alink & Nikolaus Kriegeskorte, 2020. "Inferring exemplar discriminability in brain representations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-28, June.
    10. Rodrigo Quian Quiroga & Marta Boscaglia & Jacques Jonas & Hernan G. Rey & Xiaoqian Yan & Louis Maillard & Sophie Colnat-Coulbois & Laurent Koessler & Bruno Rossion, 2023. "Single neuron responses underlying face recognition in the human midfusiform face-selective cortex," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    11. Katherine L. Hermann & Shridhar R. Singh & Isabelle A. Rosenthal & Dimitrios Pantazis & Bevil R. Conway, 2022. "Temporal dynamics of the neural representation of hue and luminance polarity," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, December.
    12. Katherine R. Storrs & Barton L. Anderson & Roland W. Fleming, 2021. "Unsupervised learning predicts human perception and misperception of gloss," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(10), pages 1402-1417, October.
    13. Agustin Lage-Castellanos & Giancarlo Valente & Elia Formisano & Federico De Martino, 2019. "Methods for computing the maximum performance of computational models of fMRI responses," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-25, March.
    14. Irina Higgins & Le Chang & Victoria Langston & Demis Hassabis & Christopher Summerfield & Doris Tsao & Matthew Botvinick, 2021. "Unsupervised deep learning identifies semantic disentanglement in single inferotemporal face patch neurons," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, December.
    15. Ming Bo Cai & Nicolas W Schuck & Jonathan W Pillow & Yael Niv, 2019. "Representational structure or task structure? Bias in neural representational similarity analysis and a Bayesian method for reducing bias," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-30, May.
    16. Marcelo G Mattar & Michael W Cole & Sharon L Thompson-Schill & Danielle S Bassett, 2015. "A Functional Cartography of Cognitive Systems," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-26, December.
    17. Guohua Shen & Tomoyasu Horikawa & Kei Majima & Yukiyasu Kamitani, 2019. "Deep image reconstruction from human brain activity," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-23, January.
    18. Batrancea Larissa, 2021. "Research Insights From Cognitive Neuroscience For Everyday Economists," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 2, pages 35-41, April.
    19. Zhou, Lixing & Takane, Yoshio & Hwang, Heungsun, 2016. "Dynamic GSCANO (Generalized Structured Canonical Correlation Analysis) with applications to the analysis of effective connectivity in functional neuroimaging data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 93-109.
    20. Cai Wingfield & Li Su & Xunying Liu & Chao Zhang & Phil Woodland & Andrew Thwaites & Elisabeth Fonteneau & William D Marslen-Wilson, 2017. "Relating dynamic brain states to dynamic machine states: Human and machine solutions to the speech recognition problem," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-25, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1008775. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.