↓ Skip to main content

American Physiological Society

The divisive normalization model of V1 neurons: a comprehensive comparison of physiological data and model predictions

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurophysiology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
The divisive normalization model of V1 neurons: a comprehensive comparison of physiological data and model predictions
Published in
Journal of Neurophysiology, August 2017
DOI 10.1152/jn.00821.2016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tadamasa Sawada, Alexander A Petrov

Abstract

The physiological responses of simple and complex cells in the primary visual cortex (V1) have been studied extensively and modeled at different levels. At the functional level, the divisive normalization model (DNM, Heeger, 1992) has accounted for a wide range of single-cell recordings in terms of a combination of linear filtering, nonlinear rectification, and divisive normalization. We propose standardizing the formulation of the DNM and implementing it in software that takes static grayscale images as inputs and produces firing-rate responses as outputs. We also review a comprehensive suite of 30 empirical phenomena and report a series of simulation experiments that qualitatively replicate dozens of key experiments with a standard parameter set consistent with physiological measurements. This systematic approach identifies novel falsifiable predictions of the DNM. We show how the model simultaneously satisfies the conflicting desiderata of flexibility and falsifiability. Our key idea is that, while adjustable parameters are needed to accommodate the diversity across neurons, they must be fixed for a given individual neuron. This requirement introduces falsifiable constraints when this single neuron is probed with multiple stimuli. We also present mathematical analyses and simulation experiments that explicate some of these constraints.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 27%
Researcher 21 25%
Student > Master 8 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 7 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 29 34%
Psychology 12 14%
Engineering 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Computer Science 5 6%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 13 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 March 2021.
All research outputs
#15,138,010
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurophysiology
#4,301
of 8,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,474
of 326,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurophysiology
#53
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,454 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,031 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.