Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 1998 Dec 7;265(1412):2315–2320. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0577

Independent component analysis of natural image sequences yields spatio-temporal filters similar to simple cells in primary visual cortex.

J H van Hateren 1, D L Ruderman 1
PMCID: PMC1689525  PMID: 9881476

Abstract

Simple cells in the primary visual cortex process incoming visual information with receptive fields localized in space and time, bandpass in spatial and temporal frequency, tuned in orientation, and commonly selective for the direction of movement. It is shown that performing independent component analysis (ICA) on video sequences of natural scenes produces results with qualitatively similar spatio-temporal properties. Whereas the independent components of video resemble moving edges or bars, the independent component filters, i.e. the analogues of receptive fields, resemble moving sinusoids windowed by steady Gaussian envelopes. Contrary to earlier ICA results on static images, which gave only filters at the finest possible spatial scale, the spatio-temporal analysis yields filters at a range of spatial and temporal scales. Filters centred at low spatial frequencies are generally tuned to faster movement than those at high spatial frequencies.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (182.2 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Adelson E. H., Bergen J. R. Spatiotemporal energy models for the perception of motion. J Opt Soc Am A. 1985 Feb;2(2):284–299. doi: 10.1364/josaa.2.000284. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker C. L., Jr Spatial- and temporal-frequency selectivity as a basis for velocity preference in cat striate cortex neurons. Vis Neurosci. 1990 Feb;4(2):101–113. doi: 10.1017/s0952523800002273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barlow H. B. Single units and sensation: a neuron doctrine for perceptual psychology? Perception. 1972;1(4):371–394. doi: 10.1068/p010371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bell A. J., Sejnowski T. J. An information-maximization approach to blind separation and blind deconvolution. Neural Comput. 1995 Nov;7(6):1129–1159. doi: 10.1162/neco.1995.7.6.1129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bell A. J., Sejnowski T. J. The "independent components" of natural scenes are edge filters. Vision Res. 1997 Dec;37(23):3327–3338. doi: 10.1016/s0042-6989(97)00121-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. De Valois R. L., Albrecht D. G., Thorell L. G. Spatial frequency selectivity of cells in macaque visual cortex. Vision Res. 1982;22(5):545–559. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(82)90113-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. DeAngelis G. C., Ohzawa I., Freeman R. D. Spatiotemporal organization of simple-cell receptive fields in the cat's striate cortex. I. General characteristics and postnatal development. J Neurophysiol. 1993 Apr;69(4):1091–1117. doi: 10.1152/jn.1993.69.4.1091. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Field D. J. Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response properties of cortical cells. J Opt Soc Am A. 1987 Dec;4(12):2379–2394. doi: 10.1364/josaa.4.002379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Olshausen B. A., Field D. J. Emergence of simple-cell receptive field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images. Nature. 1996 Jun 13;381(6583):607–609. doi: 10.1038/381607a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Olshausen B. A., Field D. J. Sparse coding with an overcomplete basis set: a strategy employed by V1? Vision Res. 1997 Dec;37(23):3311–3325. doi: 10.1016/s0042-6989(97)00169-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ruderman D. L. Origins of scaling in natural images. Vision Res. 1997 Dec;37(23):3385–3398. doi: 10.1016/s0042-6989(97)00008-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Simoncelli E. P., Heeger D. J. A model of neuronal responses in visual area MT. Vision Res. 1998 Mar;38(5):743–761. doi: 10.1016/s0042-6989(97)00183-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Van Hateren J. H. Spatiotemporal contrast sensitivity of early vision. Vision Res. 1993 Jan;33(2):257–267. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(93)90163-q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Watson A. B., Barlow H. B., Robson J. G. What does the eye see best? 1983 Mar 31-Apr 6Nature. 302(5907):419–422. doi: 10.1038/302419a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Watson A. B., Turano K. The optimal motion stimulus. Vision Res. 1995 Feb;35(3):325–336. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(94)00182-l. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. van Hateren J. H., van der Schaaf A. Independent component filters of natural images compared with simple cells in primary visual cortex. Proc Biol Sci. 1998 Mar 7;265(1394):359–366. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES