Neural Computation, Vol 8, 1611-1641, Copyright © 1996 by The MIT Press

ARTICLES

Binocular receptive field models, disparity tuning, and characteristic disparity

YD Zhu and N Qian
Center for Neurobiology and Behavior, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA.

Disparity tuning of visual cells in the brain depends on the structure of their binocular receptive fields (RFs). Freeman and coworkers have found that binocular RFs of a typical simple cell can be quantitatively described by two Gabor functions with the same gaussian envelope but different phase parameters in the sinusoidal modulations (Freeman and Ohzawa 1990). This phase-parameter-based RF description has recently been questioned by Wagner and Frost (1993) based on their identification of a so-called characteristic disparity (CD) in some cells' disparity tuning curves. They concluded that their data favor the traditional binocular RF model, which assumes on overall positional shift between a cell's left and right RFs. Here we set to resolve this issue by studying the dependence of cells' disparity tuning on their underlying RF structures through mathematical analyses and computer simulations. We model the disparity tuning curves in Wagner and Frost's experiments and demonstrate that the mere existence of approximate CDs in real cells cannot be used to distinguish the phase-parameter-based RF description from the traditional position-shift-based RF description. Specifically, we found that model simple cells with either type RF description do not have a CD. Model complex cells with the position-shift-based RF description have a precise CD, and those with the phase-parameter-based RF description have an approximate CD. We also suggest methods for correctly distinguishing the two types of RF descriptions. A hybrid of the two RF models may be required to fit the behavior of some real cells, and we show how to determine the relative contributions of the two RF models.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. K. C. Tsang and B. E. Shi Normalization Enables Robust Validation of Disparity Estimates from Neural Populations Neural Comput., October 1, 2008; 20(10): 2464 - 2490. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Farell Orientation-Specific Computation in Stereoscopic Vision J. Neurosci., September 6, 2006; 26(36): 9098 - 9106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Tanabe, T. Doi, K. Umeda, and I. Fujita Disparity-Tuning Characteristics of Neuronal Responses to Dynamic Random-Dot Stereograms in Macaque Visual Area V4 J Neurophysiol, October 1, 2005; 94(4): 2683 - 2699. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Perez, A. F. Castro, M. S. Justo, M. A. Bermudez, and F. Gonzalez Retinal Correspondence of Monocular Receptive Fields in Disparity-Sensitive Complex Cells from Area V1 in the Awake Monkey Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., April 1, 2005; 46(4): 1533 - 1539. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. C.A. Read and B. G. Cumming Understanding the Cortical Specialization for Horizontal Disparity Neural Comput., October 1, 2004; 16(10): 1983 - 2020. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Chen and N. Qian A Coarse-to-Fine Disparity Energy Model with Both Phase-Shift and Position-Shift Receptive Field Mechanisms Neural Comput., August 1, 2004; 16(8): 1545 - 1577. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. K. C. Tsang and B. E. Shi A Preference for Phase-Based Disparity in a Neuromorphic Implementation of the Binocular Energy Model Neural Comput., August 1, 2004; 16(8): 1579 - 1600. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Dominguez and R. A. Jacobs Developmental Constraints Aid the Acquisition of Binocular Disparity Sensitivities Neural Comput., January 1, 2003; 15(1): 161 - 182. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. C. A. Read A Bayesian Approach to the Stereo Correspondence Problem Neural Comput., June 1, 2002; 14(6): 1371 - 1392. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				Y. Chen, Y. Wang, and N. Qian Modeling V1 Disparity Tuning to Time-Varying Stimuli J Neurophysiol, July 1, 2001; 86(1): 143 - 155. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Nieder and H. Wagner Horizontal-Disparity Tuning of Neurons in the Visual Forebrain of the Behaving Barn Owl J Neurophysiol, May 1, 2000; 83(5): 2967 - 2979. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Erwin and K. D. Miller The Subregion Correspondence Model of Binocular Simple Cells J. Neurosci., August 15, 1999; 19(16): 7212 - 7229. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Anzai, I. Ohzawa, and R. D. Freeman Neural Mechanisms for Encoding Binocular Disparity: Receptive Field Position Versus Phase J Neurophysiol, August 1, 1999; 82(2): 874 - 890. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Ohzawa, G. C. Deangelis, and R. D. Freeman Encoding of Binocular Disparity by Complex Cells in the Cat's Visual Cortex J Neurophysiol, June 1, 1997; 77(6): 2879 - 2909. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Anzai, I. Ohzawa, and R. D. Freeman Neural mechanisms underlying binocular fusion and stereopsis: Position vs. phase PNAS, May 13, 1997; 94(10): 5438 - 5443. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]