Explaining face representation in the primate brain using different computational models.
computational model
electrophysiology
face processing
inferotemporal cortex
neural coding
primate vision
Journal
Current biology : CB
ISSN: 1879-0445
Titre abrégé: Curr Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9107782
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 07 2021
12 07 2021
Historique:
received:
20
05
2020
revised:
22
03
2021
accepted:
08
04
2021
pubmed:
6
5
2021
medline:
7
4
2022
entrez:
5
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Understanding how the brain represents the identity of complex objects is a central challenge of visual neuroscience. The principles governing object processing have been extensively studied in the macaque face patch system, a sub-network of inferotemporal (IT) cortex specialized for face processing. A previous study reported that single face patch neurons encode axes of a generative model called the "active appearance" model, which transforms 50D feature vectors separately representing facial shape and facial texture into facial images. However, a systematic investigation comparing this model to other computational models, especially convolutional neural network models that have shown success in explaining neural responses in the ventral visual stream, has been lacking. Here, we recorded responses of cells in the most anterior face patch anterior medial (AM) to a large set of real face images and compared a large number of models for explaining neural responses. We found that the active appearance model better explained responses than any other model except CORnet-Z, a feedforward deep neural network trained on general object classification to classify non-face images, whose performance it tied on some face image sets and exceeded on others. Surprisingly, deep neural networks trained specifically on facial identification did not explain neural responses well. A major reason is that units in the network, unlike neurons, are less modulated by face-related factors unrelated to facial identification, such as illumination.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33951457
pii: S0960-9822(21)00527-3
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2021.04.014
pmc: PMC8566016
mid: NIHMS1695629
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2785-2795.e4Subventions
Organisme : NEI NIH HHS
ID : R01 EY019702
Pays : United States
Organisme : NEI NIH HHS
ID : R01 EY030650
Pays : United States
Organisme : Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of interests The authors declare no competing interests.
Références
PLoS Comput Biol. 2014 Dec 18;10(12):e1003963
pubmed: 25521294
Front Syst Neurosci. 2008 Nov 24;2:4
pubmed: 19104670
Science. 2010 Nov 5;330(6005):845-51
pubmed: 21051642
J Neurosci. 2014 Aug 13;34(33):11143-51
pubmed: 25122910
Nature. 1988 Jan 14;331(6152):163-6
pubmed: 3340162
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jun 10;111(23):8619-24
pubmed: 24812127
Neuron. 2012 May 10;74(3):567-81
pubmed: 22578507
Commun Biol. 2020 May 8;3(1):221
pubmed: 32385392
Sci Adv. 2020 Mar 04;6(10):eaax5979
pubmed: 32181338
Nat Neurosci. 2016 Apr;19(4):613-22
pubmed: 26900926
J Opt Soc Am A. 1987 Mar;4(3):519-24
pubmed: 3572578
Science. 2006 Feb 3;311(5761):670-4
pubmed: 16456083
Biol Cybern. 1980;36(4):193-202
pubmed: 7370364
eNeuro. 2017 Jun 27;4(3):
pubmed: 28660250
Behav Res Methods. 2015 Dec;47(4):1122-1135
pubmed: 25582810
Trends Cogn Sci. 2018 Feb;22(2):100-110
pubmed: 29254899
Behav Res Methods. 2016 Sep;48(3):1197-204
pubmed: 26311590
Cell. 2017 Jun 1;169(6):1013-1028.e14
pubmed: 28575666
Curr Biol. 2017 Jan 9;27(1):62-67
pubmed: 27916522
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2020 Jun;21(6):335-346
pubmed: 32303713