Seems like a trend that some want very hard to ignore the role of the thalamus on vision. I mean, at least don't refer to it as "LGN" in your figures, it's not an alledged hypothetical brain region that needs the dubious distinction of finger quotespic.twitter.com/OkxGVIoNep
A Unified Theory of Early Visual Representations from Retina to Cortex through Anatomically Constrained Deep CNNs https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.00945 this is thought provoking and makes some interesting testable predictionspic.twitter.com/7eqdjUID2G
-
-
-
Quotes refer to our model of LGN, as opposed to data. We are well aware of the important role of thalamo-cortical circuits, but implementing them in our model was not necessary to reproduce striking qualitative differences between retinal and V1 RFs -- the focus of this study.
-
Sure, I understand it was not the focus of the study (reasonable), but in the same figure the V1 is not referred to as "V1", and as far as I can tell that part of the figure refers to your model of V1 as well.
-
You make a fair point, thanks for pointing that out. Will make sure to correct this in an updated version.
-
Thank you for being so understanding! But this is not a major issue, so if it's too onerous to change this (ie it would require a new doi or a formal correction), then no need to bother.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.